Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (SUSPENSION)

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Messages [27th October and 3rd November] as relates to the Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill [Lords], the County of Cleveland Bill [Lords], the London Underground (Goodge Street) Bill [Lords], the Dyfed Bill [Lords] be now considered.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means].

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ABERYSTWYTH HARBOUR BILL, BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL, LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (CITY EXTENSION) BILL AND PONTYPRIDD MARKETS FAIRS AND TOWN HALL BILL

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Messages [29th October and 3rd November] as relates to the Aberystwyth Harbour Bill, the British Railways (No. 2) Bill the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill and the Pontypridd Markets Fairs and Town Hall Bill be now considered.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Aberystwyth Harbour Bill, the British Railways (No. 2) Bill, the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill and the Pontypridd Markets Fairs and Town Hall Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, provided that in the case of each Bill the agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That each Bill shall he laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been

presented and, when so laid, shall he read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this louse as having been so read;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means].

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Strategic Defence Initiative

Mr. Clay: asked the Secretary of Defence what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of the United States concerning the strategic defence initiative; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): I have had a number of discussions on SDI with representatives of the United States Government in recent weeks, including at the NATO nuclear planning group meeting at Gleneagles. The detail of those discussions is confidential, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the NPG communiquéé, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Clay: Is it not the case that the Reykjavik summit demonstrated that the illusion of SDI, far from enhancing the possibility of nuclear disarmament, is the main stumbling block? In the light of that, should not the Secretary of State have a word with the Prime Minister and ask her to tell President Reagan that we believe that the only reason why America wants British involvement is to rip off commercial research and development by British firms? Will the Secretary of State come clean about the anti-tactical ballistic missile initiative and make an honest statement? Finally, will he tell President Reagan to withdraw this proposal and grasp the offer made by Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik?

Mr. Younger: Nothing that happened at Reykjavik alters the fact that the Soviet Union has been engaged in research into strategic defence matters for a long time, and that its efforts at Reykjavik were aimed at trying to prevent the United States from doing the same while carrying on doing it itself, which seems wholly unreasonable.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we can get away from the doctrine of MAD — mutually assured destruction—that would be of great advantage to the world, not just the East, but the West as well? Do we not want to get away from that and substitute something effective, which will work to ensure peace for the future?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, and that is why the Government put such a high priority on encouraging our allies in the United States to negotiate as strongly as they can for reductions, in arms provided that they are balanced reductions, including all types of armaments, so that security in the West can be maintained.

Mr. Beith: Do the Government believe that SDI can create an impenetrable nuclear shield which will make nuclear weapons unnecessary? How will that help Europe?

Mr. Younger: The purpose of the SDI programme is to establish whether such techniques can produce such an effect and, if so, whether they can be deployed to be an extra protection for the West. British participation is based on the fact that it is research into that possibility and no further.

Mr. Wilkinson: Was not the President of the United States in a sense set up by the Soviets at Reykjavik? Does my right hon. Friend agree that for General-Secretary Gorbachev to make the abandonment of SDI a precondition for arms control progress was a dangerous step on his part, as the whole world was looking forward to an early sumit in the United States, with an agenda settled at Reykjavik and agreed by both sides?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct to suggest that had President Reagan agreed to the one condition that the Soviet Union and Mr. Gorbachev tried to lay down at Reykjavik he would have given away the right of the West to research into those matters while leaving the Soviet Union free to continue to do so. My hon. Friend is right in thinking that that would be a dangerous mistake and we should be grateful to President Reagan for not agreeing to it.

Mr. Mason: In the wake of the Reykjavik conference and the briefing that the Prime Minister received from Mr. Gorbachev's special emissary — a report which the Secretary of State for Defence must have read—to what extent was the SDI barrier responsible for the breakdown of the talks? If the SDI is so important, what are the prospects of any arms reductions between East and West and further talks?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. At present it is not clear whether the Soviet Union is mainly worried about the precise definition of research and getting a tighter limit upon that, or whether it will be so completely opposed to the SDI programme in any conceivable circumstances that that will be a stopping point to any progress. I hope that that is not the case, but it is one matter that must be explored at Geneva.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend spell out the new projects on which British scientisits are engaged in this area and what advantages are likely to accrue to Britain as a result? Is it not sensible that Britain should be involved in anti-missile defence? Will that give us some chance of playing a part in the decision whether the project could be implemented in the next century?

Mr. Younger: I cannot give precise details of each project in which British firms are involved. At present about $17 million worth of business is coming to British firms as part of the SDI programme. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that such research, in which British firms are participating, is trying only to establish whether such techniques will be important for the defensive shield of the West in future.

Mr. Denzil Davies: In an earlier answer the right hon. Gentleman said that it was the British Government's view that arms should be reduced. As President Reagan offered at Reykjavik to get rid of all strategic nuclear weaponry

within 10 years, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British Government were consulted on that offer and whether they approve of and agree with it?

Mr. Younger: The British Government were closely, effectively and constantly consulted in the preparations for the Reykjavik summit. I could not possibly have expected any closer consultation than there was. During the two days of the summit, the discussions naturally had to be conducted between those who were present, not others who were then in America or in Europe. It has always been the British Government's objective to achieve reductions in arms. If, in due course, taking into account all factors, including conventional and chemical weapons, we could approach a period of big reductions or even zero weapons, we would be prepared to take part in that process. But we are not prepared to accept only one part of it on its own.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any British officials or scientists were present at the recent American testing of SDI equipment in the Nevada desert.

Mr. Younger: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the nuclear test that was carried out in the Nevada desert on 16 October and which has been confirmed publicly by the United States Department of Energy. No British officials or scientists were present.

Mr. Hughes: Is it true that the SDI scuppered the Reykjavik disarmament talks and that further star wars tests mean further nuclear tests to determine the feasibility of the X-ray system? When will the Government realise that if they want disarmament and a comprehensive test ban treaty, the sooner they get off the Reagan bandwagon the better?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been no suggestion that that nuclear test was related to the strategic defence initiative. The Americans have made it clear that they abide by the anti-ballistic missile treaty and, therefore, no nuclear tests in space would be permitted as part of the research into the SDI programme. The hon. Gentleman's question falls on both parts. As for the ending of the Reykjavik summit, the reason why agreement was almost achieved but was not reached was the insistence of the Soviet Union that the Americans should abandon their SDI research, while leaving the Soviet Union free to do its own. That was an extraordinarily bad bargain, which President Reagan was right to refuse.

Mr. Marlow: If Britain were to adopt the defence policy, or lack of policy, which has been sold to the Labour party by Mrs. Ruddock and Mrs. Kinnock, would we not find that, with no Americans in Europe and with no nuclear weapons in Western Europe, the only way that we could defend ourselves would be with our own SDI?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend may well be right on that point. If the British Government had followed the policies advocated by the CND, the Labour party and others, we should he left now with the Soviet Union not being prepared to negotiate on any aspect of cruise missiles and we should have the SS20s pointed towards us in western Europe, with nothing to counter them. It seems to me that this episode is a complete demolition of the whole theory upon which the CND is based.

Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State has twice alluded to Soviet breaches of treaty obligations. Have the Soviets in any way breached the ABM treaty, and has this matter been raised by the United States with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Younger: On a point of correction, I do not think that I have suggested at any time this afternoon that the Soviet Union has breached the ABM treaty, and I make no such suggestion now. I understand that both sides are prepared to keep within the ABM treaty, but that there is some dispute as to the precise definition of what it involves.

Rolls-Royce plc

Mr. Stern: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total value of all contracts recently placed by his Department with Rolls-Royce plc, both in terms of money and estimated man hours.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): The total value of contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence with Rolls-Royce plc in the first six months of the current financial year amounts to £100 million. However, much of our business with the company, such as RB199 engines for Tornado, is contracted for internationally. We expect our total business this year with the company to amount to about £500 million. It is not possible, I am afraid, to provide a reliable estimate of the man hours involved, though clearly Ministry of Defence business with Rolls-Royce plc sustains a substantial number of jobs.

Mr. Stern: I congratulate my hon. Friend both on the answer and on the fact that he has delivered it. In view of the substantial business from his Department to Rolls-Royce plc this year, on top of the substantial orders that it already holds on behalf of his Department, does he agree that the work force of Rolls-Royce plc need have no fears whatsoever as to their future employment, whether in state or private hands?

Mr. Hamilton: Those employees of Rolls-Royce plc whom I have met relish the idea of privatisation. They foresee themselves as shareholders and coming out from under Government control.

Mr. Park: If Rolls-Royce plc is to continue to gain contracts, does the Minister agree that it will be necessary for it to maintain and even to expand its research and development? Will Government support be forthcoming for research and development if Rolls-Royce plc is privatised?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes. Government support will continue to be forthcoming for research and development in Rolls-Royce plc, whatever the ownership.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking up his post as Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. Will he confirm that the order for the Rolls-Royce RB199 engines for Tornado will include the follow-on order, the attrition order for the Royal Air Force, which was reduced by the sale of Tornados to Saudi Arabia? Will he assure me that it is included in that particular order? What is more, if it is not included in that order, I assure my hon. Friend that he will be under even greater pressure than he is now.

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I assure him that we anticipate that the combination of our orders for the RB199, together with those from the Saudis, will take sales through into the mid-1990s.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that at my meeting with the trade union representatives at Rolls-Royce, Parkside—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Member a chance.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that at my meeting yesterday with the trade union representatives at Rolls-Royce, Parkside, in Coventry I was told that the proportion of workers opposed to privatisation was about 80 to 85 per cent.? Given the Prime Minister's oft-stated premise that defence is of the highest national priority, would not the privatisation of Rolls-Royce mean that money from the Defence Department would result not only in £500 million being spent on engines but in money being spent on the propping up and subsidisation of shareholders' dividends? How does that equate with the Prime Minister's statement that defence is a national priority?

Mr. Hamilton: We are convinced that the privatisation of Rolls-Royce will give the Ministry of Defence better value for money. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the national interest, but many defence suppliers are already in the private sector, and they play an equally important role.

Arms Sales (Register)

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to set up a register of arms sales.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not inconsistent of the Government to deny the public any opportunity of seeing in the House or outside, the applications made for arms sales, let alone knowing the criteria on which those arms exports are made, when only two years ago the Government's representative at the United Nations study on conventional arms argued for an international arms register? That was blocked by the Soviet Union. However, our allies, the United States, have a public debate in Congress before deciding major arms sales. Should the Government not be consistent both with their allies and with their other more private activities?

Mr. Hamilton: The Government consider that they have a great safeguard in that any defence equipment needs an Export of Goods (Control) Order before it can be shipped. We are satisfied that that provides the safeguard that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Whitfield: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply to that question. Is he aware that it is official Labour party policy, with which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) presumably agrees, to disband the Defence Export Services Organisation as part of trying to bring the sales of all arms under closer political control? Is not such a policy wholy repugnant to the many thousands of people who work in the defence and arms industries in Britain, and to our allies in NATO, including Turkey, which, according to that policy, is classed, for some extraordinary reason, as a repressive nation?

Mr. Hamilton: It is remarkable that it is Labour party policy to disband the Defence Export Services Organisation, especially as it was set up by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Indeed, that was one of his better acts as Secretary of State for Defence. When it comes to defence export sales, we are talking about 120,000 jobs in Britain being at stake. We should not dismiss that lightly.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. On the question of arms sales by British contractors, has he seen the file and appendices that I submitted during the recess to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on excess profits being made on defence contracts by Thorn EMI and Dowty-Rotol, and Aish and company? Has the hon. Gentleman examined that document, and when may I expect a ministerial reply setting out acceptance of the need to compensate whistleblowers on excess profits where they are being made?

Mr. Hamilton: I am aware of that document, and I know that it is being investigated. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can expect a reply before very long.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend reconsider his position? If we had an arms sales register, we could constantly remind the British people of the enormous contribution by the defence industries to our overall export drive. In particular, we could remind them of the record £5,000 million deal—the biggest export deal ever — which was secured by British Aerospace, this Government and our Prime Minister.

Mr. Hamilton: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but many of the deals are confidential as between the supplier and the recipient and some countries would not want all the deals that we make with them to be made public.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister consider widening the suggestion? It would help taxpayers to know just how many contracts go to privatised firms which are not only not British, but do not provide jobs in any form in this country?

Mr. Hamilton: It remains an objective of the Ministry of Defence to get the best value for money. We cannot restrict ourselves to British suppliers if we are to do that.

NATO Bases

Mr. Corbyn: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what controls Her Majesty's Government have over North Atlantic Treaty Organisation bases in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): All bases in the United Kingdom that are used by other NATO allies remain in British ownership and their use is subject to the agreement of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister publish a list of designated NATO bases in this country and the rules under which they are used by other armed forces? In the event of the United States or any other NATO country wishing to use a base to bomb another country without the approval of the British Government, would the British Government be able to stop it if they wished?

Mr. Stanley: We publish in Hansard, in response to questions by hon. Members, details of bases that are occupied by the United States forces in this country. As was made quite clear, there can be no question of nuclear weapons being fired from British soil without the consent of the British Prime Minister. We have made it clear also, following the events in relation to Libya, that there are no circumstances in which American aircraft based in this country may be used without our consent in military operations planned by the United States.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Has my right hon. Friend yet received a report on the ambush of a military convoy from a British base in the early hours of this morning? Is he aware that it will cause great concern among people in this country that such an event can take place? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he is satisfied that similar incidents can be prevented in future? Have the perpetrators been apprehended?

Mr. Stanley: I have received a report on the events to which my hon. Friend referred. I understand that some arrests were made. I think my hon. Friend will recognise that the police and service men involved showed immense patience and restraint. I assure my hon. Friend that in very different international circumstances from those today we would have to take a different attitude towards the protection of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Did the Minister's original response also relate to United Kingdom territorial waters? Have there been any accidents with United States nuclear submarines in the past 12 months?

Mr. Stanley: My previous answer also related to nuclear weapons fired from within British territorial waters.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would like Her Majesty's Government to have more control over the security surrounding NATO bases than was shown by half-baked local authorities such as Cambridgeshire, whose failure to enforce the law against the mob of CND and other odd-balls is as infuriating to the residents as it is dangerous to the security of the nation?

Mr. Stanley: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. He will be aware that, thanks to his and the Government's efforts, security at Greenham Common and at Molesworth is very much better today than it was some time ago.

Independent Nuclear Deterrent

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the maintenance of the independent nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Younger: The independent strategic nuclear deterrent will remain vital to our security and to the security of our NATO partners for a long time to come. That is why we took the decision in 1980 to purchase the Trident system, which will provide an effective and credible deterrent well into the 21st century.

Mr. Leigh: Whatever may or may not have been the options in the past, is it not a fact that if, like the leader of the Social Democratic party, one professes a belief in the maintenance of the independent nuclear deterrent, one


can see no viable alternative to Trident capable of providing a successor to Polaris in time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the electorate will take a dim view of any electoral alliance which not only cannot agree whether there should be a successor or what that successor should be but, furthermore, rejects the only viable alternative? That sort of policy is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that any political party asking for support from the electorate must have a credible defence policy. It is clear that there is no way of replacing the Polaris system, which will be credible to any potential aggressor from the mid-1990s onwards, other than with the Trident system. I hope that all concerned will now come to terms with that fact and support it.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: In what conceivable circumstances can our so-called independent nuclear deterrent be used?

Mr. Younger: We have made it clear that the possession of our independent nuclear deterrent should be available as a last-resort response in any future circumstance in which such a response by this country is needed. If that protection were abandoned, this country would be at the mercy of a vastly superior conventional attack. The hon. Gentleman and his party are backing a very dangerous defence policy in abandoning that protection.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties of the zero-zero option is that it does not include those Third World powers that have already developed or are developing atomic and nuclear weapons? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to defend ourselves from that potential danger, we need to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Younger: We have made it perfectly clear that none of our weapons—whether nuclear or non-nuclear—will ever be used as a first-strike weapon and that, therefore, this country's adoption of the independent nuclear deterrent is a safeguard available to a British Government to use against any threat in the future. The necessity to have that response has been agreed policy between all Governments since the war, Labour as well as Conservative. I hope that that will be the case in future.

Mr. Wallace: If, in the next five to six years, the Soviet Union and the United States were able to agree a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear missiles, will it be the policy of the Conservative party, if re-elected to office, to deploy a missile system which represents an eightfold increase in the present Polaris system, or are there circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to negotiate away Trident, and if so, what are they?

Mr. Younger: If the United States and the Soviet Union were to agree on such a thing, it would be more than the Liberal party has been able to do with its defence policy. If there were large reductions in strategic weapons of the size suggested by the hon. Gentleman—50 per cent. or so—the Government would be perfectly prepared to go along with the search for such reductions, but if it were anything further, we would require conventional and other weapons systems which are a threat to us to be taken into account.

Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to abandon Britain's nuclear deterrent and to expel American nuclear bases from this country would not only lead to the break-up of NATO and undermine our relationships with the United States but, in effect, would pose the greatest threat to peace in Europe since the war?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct. There is no doubt that the destabilising effect of the possibilities described by my hon. Friend would be a grave danger to world peace and put us in greater danger than we are at the moment. It is only the certainty felt by any aggressor who thought of attacking this country that that would be the response, which it could not contemplate, that has kept us safe for more than 40 years. If the policy is allowed to continue, it will keep the peace for very many years into the future.

Mr. McNamara: On the basis of the answers just given by the Secretary of State, are we now to assume that it is the Government's policy that in no circumstances will they be prepared to see the United Kingdom give up its deterrent and that, therefore, we will maintain a deterrent, no matter what the United States does, while there are strong conventional forces in the USSR? In fact, it is now a deterrent not against nuclear blackmail but against conventional forces.

Mr. Younger: We have always made it perfectly clear that in present circumstances we consider that the possession of an independent deterrent by this country is essential to our security. As I have said, that has been the view of Labour as well as Conservative Governments. That point should be pondered by the hon. Gentleman. We have always made it clear that if there were large reductions in strategic systems and no development of any new weapons as a threat to us we would be prepared to consider whether we would contribute to further reductions thereafter.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the basic reasons behind the decision at which he has arrived and which he has made openly are the same as those behind the decision made by the Labour party—without telling the House of Commons — to go for Chevaline and update the deterrent? Are not the arguments precisely the same, except that we are deciding openly and making the announcement frankly to the whole country?

Mr. Younger: My hon. and learned Friend may well be right, although, of course, I am not privy to the inner secrets of previous Labour Governments. I certainly agree with my hon. and learned Friend and the implication of his comments, which is that if the Labour party thinks that it is safe to embark upon a policy of abandoning the nuclear deterrent and throwing out our American allies with their NATO nuclear bases in this country, it is taking an extremely dangerous step which will make war more likely, not less so.

Amphibious Ships

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the replacement of the Royal Navy's amphibious ships.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Good progress is being made in our examination of the way ahead for our amphibious capacity and my right hon. Friend will make an announcement before the end of the year.

Mr. Dixon: Will the Minister ensure that there is no further slippage in the placement of these orders? Will he also ensure that none of these are sacrificed to pay for the Trident programme?

Mr. Hamilton: At present we are not talking about orders, but are considering the whole question of replacing our present capacity.

Mr. Soames: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the foothills of immortality. Does he agree that it is self-evidently true that we can no longer retain a 50-ship fleet? What steps are his Department taking to rethink the tasks and deployment of a future greatly reduced Royal Navy?

Mr. Hamilton: We do not anticipate that the Royal Navy will be reduced to the extent to which my hon. Friend refers. I have every confidence that we shall be able to maintain a 50-ship fleet.

Mr. O'Neill: I welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement to his new responsibility. Can he be more specific as to what his colleague will be telling us by the end of the year? Will it be just another piece of delaying tactics about ordering? Will we enter the year 1987–88 before we hear anything positive about amphibious craft orders, or will there be further delaying tactics while we have to pay the price of Trident?

Mr. Hamilton: I thank he hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I cannot anticipate the statement, but when it comes it will be quite definitive about what we intend to do. It will not be a delaying tactic.

Road Accidents (Leicestershire)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many road accidents have occurred in the county of Leicestershire involving military vehicles during the last 12 months.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): My Department maintains statistics centrally on road traffic accidents involving military vehicles by parent unit and not by county. The information by county could be provided only by checking with every unit in the country.

Mr. Janner: In that case, will the Minister tell the House how many accidents have occurred in the country during the past year involving military vehicles, and in how many of those cases the vehicles were carrying nuclear weapons?

Mr. Freeman: As regards the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, for security reasons we cannot depart from the principles followed for many years by successive Labour and Conservative Governments and release information on the arrangements governing the movement of nuclear weapons. As regards the information he requested about accidents involving military vehicles, the answer is that in the year ended 31 March 1986 there were five fatalities involving military vehicles.

Mr. Lilley: Is my hon. Friend aware that a few days ago a military convoy allegedly carrying nuclear weapons

heading in the direction of Leicestershire passed through St. Albans, thereby breaching the lorry ban zone covering that city? In view of the fact that our noble Friend in another place has previously apologised for a similar incursion into the lorry ban zone, will he investigate the incident and seek to ensure that it does not occur again?

Mr. Freeman: As I have already said, and as I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate, we do not comment on the movement of nuclear weapons. As regards any infringement of road traffic regulations, I would be glad to look into any allegation concerning military convoys or military vehicles and write to my hon. Friend.

F111 Aircraft (Low Flying)

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints his Department has received concerning low-flying F111 aircraft during the past year.

Mr. Freeman: Records are not maintained in the precise form requested, but 88 complaints and inquiries were received in the Ministry of Defence between November 1985 and October 1986 relating to aircraft from stations in Great Britain where United States Air Force F111 is are based.

Mr. Thomas: Bearing in mind the number of such complaints, will the Minister tell us what contribution the United Kingdom Government are making to the NATO working party on aircraft noise in modern society? Will he assure the House that the Government will not prevent the development within NATO of the kinds of standards the West Germans insist on, which apply to West German aircraft and aircraft operating over West Germany?

Mr. Freeman: The regulations governing low-flying in Germany are different from those that apply in this country. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the German Government restrict low flying to specific areas. Since 1979, following an initiative by the then Labour Government, which we have followed ever since, we do not restrict low-flying aircraft to any specific areas. We allow them to fly anywhere in the country, with the exception of built-up areas, civil air traffic control zones and over most hospitals.

Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of this country would rather have the occasional low-flying plane, knowing that every such plane is a friend and is intent upon the proper defence of this country, than no effective allied deterrent in the sky?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. There is a great need for low-flying training in the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force, because the perceived threat involves the training of our pilots and American pilots in the techniques of low flying.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that every time a fighter aircraft crashes killing the crew, such as the German fighter that crashed in Northumberland only last week, it instils great fear in the countryside community of this country? Could we do more of the low-flying training of our pilots, which is obviously necessary, in much more sparsely populated areas of countries overseas?

Mr. Freeman: Our aircraft are required in Britain and western Europe. Therefore, we are severely constrained as


to where the aircraft can train regularly. There has been only one civilian fatality—one too many—in the past 10 years involving low-flying aircraft.

Work Force Dispersal

Mr. Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to disperse the civilian work force of his Department from the south to the north of England.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: As the House is aware, we are constantly searching for opportunities to secure a more even spread of defence employment across the regions. However, all proposals will need to stand on their economic and operational merits.

Mr. Holt: I add my congratulations to those of others to my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box. However, having heard his answer, I must ask for how much longer the melting pot is going to be melted before somebody recognises that there is a north of England, especially south Teesside. Langbaurgh especially comes to mind. We would like defence work in that area.

Mr. Hamilton: We are well aware that there is a north of England and that there is a Scotland as well. In 1979 we announced that 1,400 jobs would be transferred to Glasgow, and 1,330 of those have gone and have resulted in 1,000 jobs being recruited locally. We are very mindful of the needs of the north-east, and the representations made by my hon. Friend will be taken into account.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that nothing exposes the Government's hypocrisy concerning unemployment in the north more than their failure to transfer Civil Service jobs to the region? Is the Minister aware that since 1979, when the Government came to power, not a single Civil Service job has been transferred, in spite of the recommendations of the Hardman report? Will he set an example by acceding to the request of his hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and transferring defence jobs to the region?

Mr. Hamilton: We are well aware of the needs of the north-east and we are looking all the time at what jobs can be moved. I hope that we will be able to do something to satisfy the hon. Gentleman before long.

Sir John Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that a sensible compromise would be to centralise all the facilities in the midlands, especially in Leicester, where we have the Army pay and records office? Many millions of pounds could be saved annually by centralising that facility.

Mr. Hamilton: We shall certainly take my hon. Friend's representations to heart, but I would prefer to write to him about that.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister say how many jobs have been lost in the north in Army bases and elsewhere as a result of the MOD privatising many jobs?

Mr. Hamilton: When privatisation takes place it normally results in a certain number of jobs being replaced by others, so although they are lost in the Civil Service, they are not lost to the area.

Civilian Manpower

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-British civilians are employed by his Department.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: There are 168,000 civil servants employed by the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom and about 30,000 locally engaged civilians overseas. Information is not held centrally as to how many are non-British and it would be prohibitively expensive to collect it.
Candidates for the Civil Service must meet certain nationality and residence rules in order to be eligible for consideration for a post and each case is individually examined at the time of application.

Mr. Yeo: Bearing in mind the great cost of unemployment to British taxpayers, albeit a cost which arises in a Department different from that in which my hon. Friend has recently and happily assumed responsibilities, can he assure the House that the most careful consideration is given, whenever a non-British citizen is appointed, to the alternative of appointing a British citizen, from whatever part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hamilton: The qualifications for appointments within the United Kingdom are that people should have been in this country for a long time, so it is only in exceptional circumstances that foreigners are employed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen today the report of the serious concern expressed in Europe and the United States of America, as well as throughout Latin America, at the unilateral announcement of a Falklands fisheries zone? As it is in our interests to get an internationally accepted agreement on fisheries and to do nothing to undermine democracy in Argentina, will she think again about this hasty and ill-considered decision?

The Prime Minister: The decision was absolutely right. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have been trying through the Food and Agriculture Organisation to secure a multilateral agreement on fisheries with Argentina. We first took an initiative in April 1985, but it was delayed by Argentina. Eventually Argentina signed bilateral agreements which purported to regulate fishing in waters over which the Falklands are entitled to exercise jurisdiction. Faced with that, we took our action. It was correct arid, indeed, necessary to exercise jurisdiction over those waters.

Mr. Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most parents will regard the teachers' pay award of 16 per cent. as reasonable, generous and fair? Will she reassure the House that the Government will protect children from any further disruption of their schooling?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the offer made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is, as he said, fair, reasonable and, indeed, generous. Indeed, with the latest offer it would mean that Scottish teachers had had about


a 30 per cent. increase in pay over the past two and a half years. Many parents would wish to have a similar increase, and they have every right to expect that their children will be properly and fully educated.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister condemn the manic efforts of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to suborn the BBC by his smears and menaces, or is he acting under her orders?

The Prime Minister: The matter raised with the BBC is a straightforward one of whether the BBC is honouring the terms of its charter and its licence and agreement which it signed after the charter some time in 1981. A complaint has been made to the BBC. It is not for us to discuss it, it is now for the BBC to reply.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is incredible. Is she trying to say that her creature—which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster most definitely is—is acting in a straightforward fashion? Is this not the most tortuous attempt to try to intimidate the BBC because it is not manipulating the news in the way that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would like?

The Prime Minister: It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has read the submission, but from what he has said it does not seem that he has. If he has, he will have seen that it refers to the terms and conditions under which the BBC broadcasts, and a complaint has been made. It seems to me a matter of fact for the governors to consider. It is only they who can decide and reply to that complaint. It was a fairly measured complaint, which the right hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the submission.

Mr. Kinnock: I have read the submission. It is not a complaint, which is right; it is coercion, which is entirely wrong.

The Prime Minister: It is a matter for the governors, and only the governors, to see whether the charter, and the licence and the agreement have been honoured. It is not for us to have an argument on this matter. A complaint has been made and it is for the governors to reply.

Mr. Hirst: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November 1986.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hirst: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the people of Scotland are anxiously awaiting confirmation that the Queen's Speech next week will contain proposals for legislation to reform the thoroughly discredited and unfair rating system in Scotland? Can she reassure me that they will not be disappointed?

The Prime Minister: I know how anxiously Scotland awaits this legislation and I gladly give my hon. Friend the reassurance he requires.

Dr. Owen: In view of her earlier reply, can the right hon. Lady tell the House whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was complaining to the BBC, or was his complaint made solely in his role as chairman of the Conservative party? If so, how are the two roles distinguished? Surely the real issue is that the board of governors are responsible for the BBC and it is they who should now reply to the Conservative party, and the Government should distance themselves from Mr. Tebbit's other role, in which he does not act as a member of the Government?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is correct—my right hon. Friend was acting as chairman of the Conservative party.
I have experience and know that if, on that basis, I refuse to answer all questions, rather a lot of noise ensues in the House.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is reported that teachers in Norwich are on strike today? Does she agree that this action by the teachers' unions is destroying support for the teachers' case and lowering the regard in which the teaching profession is held by right-thinking people in Britain?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that such action is utterly disgraceful and shows no regard whatsoever for the children who are in the care of the teachers. I believe that the offer that has been made is a very generous one and that most teachers would wish to accept it. I agree very much with my hon. Friend that if teachers wish to have their professional standards restored — that is our purpose — they should accept the offer and return to giving a full education to all our children.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November 1986.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Jarrow marchers arrived in London today to protest about unemployment and to defend their right to work? Is she also aware that these marchers have now been on the march for four weeks? With regard to last week's statement, does she really think that the marchers should lose their benefit because they are not available for employment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course I am aware of the march. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, unemployment benefit is paid to those who are genuinely available for work.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Lady is cruel.

The Prime Minister: The statement that has been made is the response to the criticisms made by the Public Accounts Committee of the existing arrangements. The new questionnaire applies the law—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Heartless.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is giving an answer.

The Prime Minister: The new questionnaire applies the law as the Labour Government reaffirmed it in the Social Security Act 1975, which said:
a day shall not be treated in relation to any person—
(i) as a day of unemployment unless on that day he is capable of work and he is, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to be available to be employed in employed earner's employment".
— [Interruption.] — Of course Opposition Members make a noise. They do not like the facts read out.

Mr. Couchman: During her busy day yesterday, did my right hon. Friend have a chance to read the report in The Daily Telegraph about the extraordinary happenings on Manchester city council? Does she agree that a council which behaves in that thoroughly intolerable way deserves the sort of support—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister can answer questions only on matters for which she has responsibility.

Mr. Eastham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Prime Minister aware that two weeks ago the Employment Select Committee visited Japan, a country to which the Prime Minister would possibly refer as being very successful, where we were advised that inflation is now standing at zero, but in spite of that they paid a 4·7 per cent. wage increase this year? Is the Prime Minister aware that when we met the industrialists they advised us that they were borrowing money from the banks for industrial development at 41/8 per cent.—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules must apply. The Prime Minister can answer questions only on matters for which she is responsible.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Eastham: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order afterwards.

Mr. Eastham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall deal with that afterwards.

Mr. McNamara: The Prime Minister will recall that when the decision was taken on the dual track to have cruise and Pershing in this country it was on the ground that it would force the Russians to the table and make them take out the SS20s. Now that the Russians under Secretary-General Gorbachev, and the Americans under President Reagan, have agreed that the SS20s and cruise and Pershings should go, why is she running to the United States to see President Reagan and saying that she did not really mean it and, please, can she keep those weapons here?

The Prime Minister: The matter of the intermediate nuclear forces has to be negotiated, as the hon. Member knows, in Geneva. That is the only place where agreement can be reached. Her Majesty's Government welcome the progress made on INF at Reykjavik. It is consistent with the long-standing Alliance position that INF must be dealt with on a global basis. A zero-zero solution in Europe with some long-range intermediate nuclear forces in Asia is acceptable provided that the disparity is not to great. It is also the well-known Alliance position that the problem of the short-range intermediate nuclear forces must also be addressed because they were put in the satellite countries in response to cruise and Pershing, which themselves were in response to the SS20. The whole thing must be thoroughly and properly worked out.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend, during her very busy day, have a word with the Secretary

of State for Defence about the Royal Air Force's need for an advanced early warning system? Will she accept that if that order is not placed with GEC Avionics and British Aerospace it will be a dreadful blow for Britain's manufacturing industry, a further blow for unemployment and a kick in the teeth for British technology?

The Prime Minister: Of course one would wish orders to go to Britain. They have to be won on merit, and the important thing is whether the services which that aircraft and early warning system provide are acceptable on the ground of competence to the Royal Air Force and all the forces who use it.

Mr. Dobson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether, in the course of her busy involvement in the pressurising of the BBC by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, she found time to read the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the standards of conduct in public life?

The Prime Minister: I have, I believe, sufficiently answered the hon. Gentleman's question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. To forestall any possible points of order, I should tell the House that I stopped the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) from asking a question about what went on in the Manchester city council — [Interruption.] The Prime Minister is not responsible. I must apply the rules equally to both sides of the House.

Mr. Eastham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading in Hansard what he said, I think he will see that had he framed his question in a rather different way it would have been in order.

Mr. Eastham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. From all that I heard, he was saying about Japan very much the same kind of thing as the hon. Member for Gillingham was saying about Manchester.

Mr. Eastham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been a tendency in recent days for the Prime Minister to be asked questions on matters for which she is not responsible. I think we ought to get back to the traditional rules.

Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All questions to the Prime Minister are prefaced, to a greater of lesser extent, by paving material in order to put the question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) was precisely paving the way to ask a question about Britain's economic performance compared with that of Japan, which the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, is perfectly capable of answering, and for which she is responsible.

Mr. Eastham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me forestall all this. I shall read carefully what the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) said, and, indeed, what the hon.


Member for Gillingham said, although my recollection is that in prefacing his question the hon. Member said "Did the Prime Minister, in the course of her busy day yesterday consider …" Allow me to reflect on the matter. I am simply telling the House that I must apply the same rules to both sides and that we should get back to the position of asking the Prime Minister about matters for which she has direct responsibility.

Mr. Eastham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has sought to do no more and no less than to encourage the BBC to be impartial—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That seems the sort of question that might well be asked of a Minister, but not of me.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask for your guidance on the rights of Back Benchers in the House. It arises specifically from the next item, a private notice question about unemployment, an issue which any Opposition Member can and does raise any day of the week. I put in an application this morning to ask you about—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if he put in an application to me for a private notice question he must not raise the matter in the House.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am asking for legitimate guidance from you, Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Why is it that an issue of great importance to the integrity of Britain, about whether someone is sent abroad in a crate, whether to Israel or to Nigeria, is not allowed while a private notice question about unemployment, which can be asked at any time, is in order? Why are Back Benchers ignored while matters coming from the Front Bench are allowed?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very unworthy statement by the hon. Gentleman, who well knows that I treat the Front Benches and the Back Benches with an equal and even hand. The hon. Gentleman has not even heard the private notice question.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Answer the question.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer a question about the chairman of the Conservative party. That is what the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) asked about.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Yes, but I did not.

Mr. Eastham: rose—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Sir Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will call Mr. Eastham first.

Mr. Eastham: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. May I seek clarification? I asked the Prime Minister to make some comparisons between the Japanese economy and the disastrous British economy, but you ruled me out of order and did not give me an opportunity to pose my question. What is the reason for such conduct?

Mr. Speaker: I have explained that to the hon. Gentleman. I have said that I will read carefully in Hansard what he said. I did not hear him preface his

remarks with, "In the course of her busy day" or anything like that. May I say to the House that if, on any day, I feel that I have been unfair to any hon. Member, I have ways of putting that straight, and I always do so.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, have you noticed that there are 139 questions down today to the Prime Minister? My right hon. Friend is in great demand to answer questions on every subject under the sun, and she does it very well. May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider, instead of answering questions for a quarter of an hour twice a week, answering them for half a day in order to get rid of the backlog.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We have a busy day ahead of us, but I will take it.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This, oddly enough, is a genuine point of order. You made some comments a little earlier drawing to the attention of the House the fact that questions to the Prime Minister should have some relevance to her responsibilities. Of course, this House does not expect any longer any real answers from the Prime Minister. Would it not test the subtlety of Members of the House if you were to reinstitute the former requirement, which I think has been abandoned under your Speakership, that the questions should be prefaced by some relevance to her activities on the day on which the question is put? That old practice has increasingly been abandoned and it would be healthy for the skills of the House and a sensible return to old practice if there were a requirement to preface the question by considering today whatever the relevance of the question is.

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly the point that I was seeking to make. The hon. Gentleman makes it clearly for me and I thank him.

Mr. Adley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I try to be helpful over this matter of Prime Minister's questions? The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a fair point about paving questions, and we all know that occasionally some of us become a little long-winded in putting our paving questions. In these days of modern technology, might not a device be put to work to help you, Mr. Speaker, of the sort that is used at Wimbledon that causes bells to ring? If Members cannot get their paving questions out in the first 100 words, a bell would ring and you, Mr. Speaker, would tell them to sit down.

Mr. James Callaghan: I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether, to help us phrase our questions correctly, you could advise us how to distinguish between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster requesting the BBC to act impartially and fairly and the chairman of the Conservative party sending a bullying letter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his long experience, I am in no way responsible to the chairmen of political parties. I am responsible, however, for Ministers in this place when they come to the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order I shall take it, but it must be a point of order and not a spoof.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I misled you earlier, but I was going on to say, had I been given the chance to do so, that earlier this afternoon the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), with great venom, referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of

Lancaster by his ordinary name in making a cheap point about broadcasting. Surely we are to return to the niceties of this place.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I judged that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was referring to the Minister in his capacity as chairman of a party and not as a Member of the House.

Unemployment Benefit (Claimant Advisers)

Mr. John Prescott: (by private notice) asked the Paymaster General what targets for reductions in the number of benefit recipients are being laid down for claimant advisers in his Department.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): None, Sir.

Mr. Prescott: I hope that the Paymaster General is aware that that is an unsatisfactory answer in the light of his statement to the House last Tuesday, when he clearly informed the House that the cost of 1,500 new officers could be paid for by a 2 per cent. reduction in claimants, thereby indicating that the Department has already done its homework on how many claimants have to be removed from benefit to pay for the new officers. Will he confirm that his intention in appointing 850 claimant advisers is to make new appointments, and will he confirm also that these appointments will be in addition to the 1,500 civil servants who are to administer directly the new work availability test?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the 850 benefit advisers will be involved in checking on the unemployed who are to be subjected to the new work test? Will he tell the House why, when he was forced into the House last Tuesday to admit the existence of the new work test for the unemployed, he failed to announce an experiment for the disabled and the over-50s, and apparently failed also to tell the House that a new category of staff was already being appointed? Why has he refused to be open with the House about all the new measures that are directed towards the unemployed? Why does he insist on new measures against the unemployed when the country knows that the problem is the availability of work for the unemployed and not the availability of the unemployed for work?

Mr. Clarke: I shall deal first with the hon. Gentleman's point about my statement last week. I was asked questions last week by the hon. Gentleman and others about a new form that we have been trying out for some months without complaint, which we were introducing nationally to test availability for work. One of the hon. Gentleman's allegations was that the huge cost of taking on the extra staff for that purpose would not be justified by any savings made. What I said, as he has just reminded the House, is that if less than 2 per cent. of the register were to be saved by finding those who are not entitled to unemployment benefit, the cost would be covered. I did not imply that any target had been set down. It was an answer to an erroneous point and bad arithmetic on the hon. Gentleman's part.
As to the new hare that the Opposition have put up — the transfer of what were previously the unemployment review officers to our Department, where the posts are being filled by new claimant advisers—that move was announced to the House on 23 July in an answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, which is to be found in the Official Report for that day at column 305. When these unemployment review officers were in the Department of Health and Social Security, as my right hon. Friend said, they were responsible both for giving advice and help to unemployed

people on finding work, and for preventing abuse. They always have been, and that is what they were during the last Administration as well as during the present Administration.
We are now appointing claimant advisers, who will have two functions. The first is to give advice and help to unemployed claimants to help them take up employment or training opportunities and the second is to ensure that unemployed claimants are available for work. That is all that this is about.
This latest and rather absurd allegation has arisen out of this morning's press report, and stems from a trade union official who was relying on the minutes of a meeting that apparently took place in Luton. It is said that at that meeting, one of our middle-ranking officers, who had only the minutes to go by, expressed the matter in a way that has no ministerial authority or approval. They are fulfilling a double purpose—the first to give advice to unemployed people on how to find work or how to get other benefits, and the second to check on availability for work, because this Administration have not given up their responsibility, any more than the last Administration did, for making sure that benefits are not paid to those who are not entitled to them.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that one of the consequences of the new Restart programme has been that a large number of people who have been unemployed for a long time have been amazed to discover the opportunities open to them? Will he take it from me that many people are extremely glad that we are getting back into personal contact with people who have been unemployed for a long time, and that personal advice to enable them to find their way back through the jungle of benefits and job opportunities is welcome?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The difficulty is that our opponents do not wish to accept that. If I appear somewhat breathless it is because I have just come to the House, having flown back here to answer this question, from a visit to Manchester. I was in one of our offices this morning, where I came across a Restart interview between an official and a young man who had come to the jobcentre for the first time for a long time. At random, I went up to him and spoke to him, and he was studying the details of a job that he thought that he might be able to do. All the staff in the office were pleased with the work they were doing with Restart and job clubs. The people whom I met felt that something was being done to help them. I felt like referring them all to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is not only seeking to discredit our statistics—that is fair game — but running the risk of undermining the public perception of what we are doing to help long-term unemployed people. He and the Opposition should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: If the work of a claimant adviser causes somebody who had previously been denied unemployment benefit to start receiving it, will that be regarded as just as effective as getting somebody off the register who had previously been receiving benefit?

Mr. Clarke: Well, it would, but it is unlikely to happen because — [Laughter.] It is no good hon. Members


laughing. I was offered an easy point, which I shall not take. The people affected will usually be those who come to the benefit office and are receiving unemployment benefit. The whole point of the instructions that we have given to every grade of our staff is to help people where they can. We are now in a position to steer far more unemployed people back into work or training than we could before. We are putting a great deal of effort, at considerable public expense, into doing that. If at the same time our officials discover that there are some people claiming unemployment benefit who were never entitled to claim it, the average member of the public would think that we were mad if we told our officers to ignore that and to carry on giving the benefit because the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will complain if we do not.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he will receive widespread support from Conservative Members for the entire Restart programme, as it is the best initiative taken by his Department in recent years? Will he make every effort to ignore the rather trite and ignorant criticism from Opposition Front Bench Members, as they are clearly basing their criticism on title-tattle and one report from a particular DHSS office?

Mr. Clarke: Although I am a sensitive soul, I will take my hon. Friend's advice and allow the criticism to bounce off me. What worries me is the effect that it will have on the unemployed and the staff in our offices. Before the recess, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spent all his time trying to persuade young school leavers not to go on the youth training scheme which he described as a skivvy scheme.

Mr. Prescott: It is a skivvy scheme.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is now trying to persuade the long-term unemployed not to go to our offices as they will be fiddled out of their benefits. He is doing much harm to positive programmes. Fortunately, those at whom the programmes are aimed seem to appreciate them more.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the Paymaster General take into account the experiences of some hon. Members who have had the pilot projects working in their constituencies during the past few weeks? They have discovered considerable bitterness among many of the unemployed, who consider that they have been hounded in pursuit of this questionnaire.
More particularly, will the Paymaster General give an assurance that those individuals who have been advised, because of their unavailability to work for health reasons, to come off unemployment benefit and seek an alternative benefit, will not be in any way disadvantaged for the time that it takes to prove that they are unavailable to work for health reasons? We have heard nothing about that.

Mr. Clarke: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's first point. As I said earlier, we have been piloting availability testing for months in, among other places, the city of Nottingham next door to my constituency. We have been piloting it near the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We informed Members of Parliament when we began the testing. It has gone on for months without my receiving a murmur of complaint from anyone. I do not know whether the hon. Member raised the matter with my Department, but he has not previously mentioned his

anxiety to me. It was not until the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made a great hoohah last weekend that we suddenly discovered that the Opposition considered that there was something wrong with the testing.
I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's second point. Of course, if people are entitled to sickness benefit. they should be referred to the DHSS and receive it. That enables me to underline the main point, that no one who needs benefit will fail to get it. We are not taking people off supplementary benefit or sickness benefit. No one in Britain is left to starve with no income. We are simply responding to an all-party Committee which considers that we should stop paying unemployment benefit to people who do not appear to qualify for it and responding to the public desire that we should not pay benefit to people who do not qualify for it and that we should give positive help to the unemployed. That has been the main point of all the programmes.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is it not time that we stopped mincing words on this subject? Is it not the case that up to 25 per cent. of those who have been called for a first Restart interview have miraculously disappeared from the benefit office and the unemployment figures? Is it not the case that over 800,000 people claim to be unemployed and are drawing benefit in the prosperous south-east of England — a figure twice as high as that for the whole nation 15 years ago? Is it not the case that the vast majority of British people support my right hon. and learned Friend's actions, and that the more that idiot on the Front Bench opposite goes on banging the Table—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister answers, I should say that we do not have idiots in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes we do."] Well I say that we do not.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what is the appropriate word, but I certainly withdraw that.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend went a little over the top with his figure — I will check it — but certainly a proportion of those to whom we write do not reply and will not come in. There is also a proportion of people who stop claiming the moment they hear from us. Although I would not put it in quite the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), if one talks to the average man and woman in the street one discovers that they do not believe that no one is claiming unemployment benefit who is not entitled to it. They tend to say that many such people are doing so. When, while carrying out these other policies, we encounter such people, either because they do not come in at all or they tell our office staff that they do not want jobs, we stop paying benefit. But it is absolutely absurd to say that stopping benefits in such circumstances, which is what the staff are supposed to do as part of their duties, is fiddling the figures.

Mr. Prescott: Of course, it is fiddling the figures.

Mr. Clarke: That also distorts the main aim of the policies, which is to find the people who are genuinely unemployed and give them more positive help than the system has given them for years.

Mr. David Winnick: I thank the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for


giving the true Tory view on this subject. Does the Minister not realise how nauseating it is that a Government who have been mainly responsible for bringing back mass unemployment should give the impression that many of the unemployed do not wish to work? Is the Minister aware, for example, that when, not so long ago, a factory in Wolverhampton, near my constituency, had a few vacancies, over 500 people started to queue up for them from midnight onwards? That shows that the unemployed want to work and that this Government are denying them the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Clarke: I entirely accept that there are excessive numbers of genuinely unemployed people in this country. That is why we introduced the Restart programme and all the other measures that have been described. It is not the case that I have suggested that the majority of them are not genuinely unemployed. If, however, in the course of carrying out this positive work, cases are encountered where it is quite obvious from what people say that they are not entitled to the benefit that they are drawing, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the officials should be instructed by me and by my fellow Ministers to carry on paying out benefit? If so, he had better go and tell that to the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. Gentleman would certainly have a job accounting for that instruction to his electorate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question.

Detective Superintendent Lundy

Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the allegation of serious corruption in the Metropolitan police.
It is specific, because I have an official Metropolitan police report, signed by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steventon, Scotland Yard's most senior anti corruption officer, that says:
it is my belief that Mr. Lundy"—
that is, Detective Superintendent Lundy—
is a corrupt officer who has long exploited his association with Garner"—
that is, Roy Garner. Deputy Sssistant Commissioner Steventon goes on to suggest that he believes that Detective Superintendent Lundy should be removed from specialist duty. Elsewhere in the report Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steventon says that grave doubts must be expressed as to the integrity of Mr. Lundy.
Since then, Detective Superintendent Anthony Lundy, Scotland Yard's most senior operational detective, has not only been approved for promotion but has also been appointed to head the new, elite special operations task force that is investigating the international laundering of £26 million of Brinks-Mat robbery money. This is equally relevant and important, because the report goes on to say that some of the evidence has been deduced from the silver bullion robbery and the Hatton Garden robbery; in respect of both of these cases the report suggests that Garner was not the informant that he was claimed to be and that he was merely exploiting the information that he had received from Lundy. The report continues:
The position is further complicated in the case of the Silver Bullion Robbery in that both Garner and Lundy were closely associated with Leonard Gibson one of the principals convicted of the crime. Photographs have appeared in the press and on television showing all three with other criminals at social functions.
The matter is clearly extremely important, because corruption in the police force anywhere must obviously be a serious matter. It is true that the information contained in the "World in Action" programme was partly available before, in the "Brass Tacks" programme which the BBC chose not to broadcast, but no legal action has been taken against the "World in Action" programme.
More information has become available. Even today, I have received information about the names of the two officers who are alleged to have threatened either the careers or the lives of other senior police officers. I do not wish to name those officers at the moment, because first I want to check them out with other sources.
The matter is urgent, because the suggestion, as made in the "World in Action" programme last night and elsewhere, is that the offences may be continuing. It has been suggested to me that a serious drugs offence has already been partly started but that is is not being dealt with in the way in which it ought to be dealt with.
It has been very difficult to get this matter debated. In January 1986, I wrote to the Minister of State, Home Office, who in his reply to me simply said that he did not


consider that it was for him to look at these issues. Since then I have given the Home Secretary the opportunity to take up the matter, but without success.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must ask the House to adjourn to discuss this matter, if only to protect the many police officers and members of the public who have approached me and asked me to make sure that it is brought to light and dealt with as an urgent and important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
corruption at new Scotland Yard".
I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman, but as he knows, my only duty is to decide whether this issue should have precedence over the business set down for consideration today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

BBC (Libel Action)

Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You will know that bogus points of order are not entirely unknown in this Chamber. Normally we tolerate them, because often they add to the gaiety of nations and augment the public stock of harmless pleasure. But that is not always so. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon . Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is the king of the bogus point of order, and that he has recently—

Hon. Members: You can't say that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can say it, but it is a bit provocative.

Mr. Hamilton: You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Workington is not the king of the bogus point of order.
Recently, through early-day motions and points of order, the hon. Gentleman has raised matters on the Floor of the House that attach to parliamentary privilege. He has used that means to utter various libels against me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), which were recently accepted by the BBC in a statement in open court as being totally without foundation. But as a result, of course, the newspapers have been able to pick them up, and with the use of qualified privilege have been able to repeat them. The BBC has thus with impunity, and on the basis of documents selectively leaked to friendly journalists by it, been able to try to refight through the newspapers the battle that it lost in court. All that is done without the protection afforded to litigants by the law of evidence. This has become trial by media on the back of what we might charitably call an extension of parliamentary privilege.
My point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is to ask you whether there is no way in which you can protect the good name of the House and prevent the privileges of free speech in the House being used to impugn the integrity of its Members, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice that he intended to raise a point of order. As the House knows, an hon. Member cannot reflect on the conduct of another hon. Member, except on the basis of a substantive motion which admits of a distinctive vote of the House. I can say only that in making his allegations, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) followed that course. What he has done is, in House of Commons terms, in order.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I personally have no cause to question the commitment of the hon. Members identified in my early-day motions to democratic principles. I personally know the hon. Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and, in particular, for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). Any suggestions that motions that I have tabled are to be interpreted as criticisms of their integrity or of their support for democratic arrangements are totally fallacious. References to incidents in Berlin are not intended to imply a connection with anti-democratic views. I have heard it said that what happened in Berlin may well have been a caper


that went wrong, thus nearly causing a diplomatic incident. I do not know — and we shall never know because the BBC settled out of court and halted the trial.
But I do know that great emphasis is being placed on the importance of the conflicting statements allegedly made by the hon. Member for Tatton. I think that the variations in his statements are unimportant, as they were made at different times, in different circumstances and under very different conditions. The activities of the hon. Members for Tatton, for Gainsborough and Horncastle and others are not important. They have never been the central issue in this affair.
The issue that concerns me is the reaction of Conservative Central Office to the revelations in the "Panorama" programme, and the heavy-handed and ruthless actions that Central Office took to deal ,with allegations of political extremism which it believed were potentially highly damaging to the Conservative party, and were therefore to be taken very seriously. That is the central question in this whole matter.
Central Office set about an elaborate attempt to interfere directly with potential witnesses. Attempts were made to manage and rig statements by Mr. David Mitchell. I repeat what I have said previously, but additionally I am able to say today that there is a tape in existence that confirms the nature of the conspiracy to hide the truth, and which identifies persons. Today I have sent a transcript of that tape to the Attorney-General. I have to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that it is but one of two tapes. I await a transcript of the second tape.
My reason for tabling early-day motions 1226, 1227 and 1238 is that they identify a person whom I know was nobbled by Central Office. It is unfortunate that, in the tabling of the early-day motions references had to be made to matters raised in the courts. That is where the hon. Member for Tatton and his hon. Friends have unfortunately had to be drawn into this matter by me. Nevertheless, it may have to happen again and again as further information will have to be brought into the public domain if I am to be able to prove interference with witnesses.
Hon. Members may ask why, after so much time, this should be important. It is important because the decision taken to nobble witnesses in the "Panorama" trial is linked directly with the decision of the Conservative party to squeeze and undermine the BBC's confidence and morale. It is the nobbling of witnesses that in part contributed to the withdrawal by the BBC and to the settlement out of court. BBC journalists today are looking over their shoulders in fear—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into great detail. Will he come to a conclusion, as he has raised a point of order in answer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I accept what you have said, Mr. Speaker.
The attacks of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) are disorienting the BBC's attempts at objective reporting. I and my many hon. Friends are deeply concerned that the great tradition of a totally free and independent BBC that is respected in every part of the

world, is being eroded by crude intimidation from senior Conservatives. The whole nation should now rally in support of the BBC's independence.
Finally, this whole campaign to reveal interference with witnesses will continue while the right hon. Member for Chingford insists on destroying the BBC's independence. It is most unfortunate that the hon. Members for Tatton, for Gainsborough and Horncastle, and others should be drawn into this affair in this way.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and I have been steadfast in our care throughout these legal proceedings not to abuse our position in the House in order to advance our case—a case which you will know put us at risk to the extent of £750,000.
I seek a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, that you will not allow the abuse of privilege in the House. If that is not to be the case, we shall use the privilege that is afforded to us perhaps to reveal other things — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that may not have emerged so far.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) will have heard the measured reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). When such early-day motions are put on the Order Paper, the greatest care is taken to ensure that they are in order and, indeed, they will not be on the Order Paper unless they are. What the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) did was, as I said, in House of Commons terms, in order, but every hon. Member must measure carefully and take responsibility for what he does in making accusations in motions about hon. Members, or in accusing others outside the House.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not your ruling demonstrate a point that many of us have tried to raise with you? We recognise that you have no powers, but for weeks or even months on end we cannot directly question the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Even when it is his turn to answer questions, it is for only five minutes. It demonstrates that when Parliament has been frustrated in this way there is no opportunity to question the Minister, or to debate the bullying and intimidation carried out against—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me to decide the length of questions to Ministers. If the hon. Member feels strongly about the matter, he may take it up through the usual channels, because it is through the usual channels that the allocation of Question Time is arranged.

BILL PRESENTED

SOCIAL SECURITY (LIMITATION OF BENEFIT)

Mr. Ralph Howell, supported by Sir William Clark, Dame Jill Knight, Sir Paul Hawkins, Sir John Biggs-Davison, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. John Townend, Mr. Tony Favell, Mr. John Watts, and Mr. Tom Sackville, presented a Bill to establish a limit for the weekly payments of benefits under the Social Security Acts subject to certain conditions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 6 November and to be printed. [Bill 230.]

Organ Donor Cards

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable potential adult organ donors to specify the uses to which their organs may be put.
The House is aware that, since the inception of the National Health Service in 1948, it has been recognised that a doctor may choose to work in the private sector, in the private and National Health Service sector or solely in the National Health Service. Many doctors refuse to treat private patients because, they argue, their principles would be jeopardised if monetary considerations played any part in medical judgments. I admire their principles. In medical matters, more than in any other, there should he no market-place concept of supply and demand.
The principles that have operated for almost 40 years should be extended. Organ transplant donors should have the right to prescribe the use to which their vital organs should be put. If a doctor can say that he will not treat patients in private beds, donors should have the right to say that their kidneys, livers, hearts, eyes and lungs cannot be given to patients occupying private beds.
The Bill's aim is simple. I merely wish the donor card to identify the donor's wishes. Any doctor who leaves the National Health Service to work in one of the hospitals so loved by richer people compromises his medical ethics. He demonstrates that he will go where the money is. Such doctors are moving to a situation in which a compromise of high moral principle is possible. If National Health Service patients are in direct competition with private patients for transplant organs, such doctors might also allow financial considerations to modify clinical ones.
Of course, not everyone will agree with my diagnosis of private doctors. Donors who disagree can specify that their organs go to patients in private beds or to any patients who require organ donations. However, a number of people require that their transplanted organs go solely to National Health Service patients. It is impossible for many people to avoid being exploited during their lifetime, but it is possible, in this limited case, to ensure that they will not be exploited after death.
Should a private patient for whom a transplant has been perfectly matched need the organ of a donor who has stated that a part of his body should go only to a National Health Service patient, the solution is simple. All he needs to do is to become a National Health Service patient. of course, the private doctor would lose money, but he might save a life.
My Bill urges that the reverse side of the donor card should present three choices. At present, as the House will be aware, it reads:
I request that after my death
(a) my kidneys, eyes, heart, liver, pancreas be used for transplantation.
My Bill will offer three choices of the patients who may be given the transplants: first, patients treated wholly in private beds, secondly, patients treated wholly in National Health Service beds, and thirdly, all patients.
My Bill is simple. It gives a right to the donor to decide whether to donate his organs to patients in private beds, all patients, or patients in National Health Service beds.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Roy Mason, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Walter Harrison, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Alec Woodall and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.

ORGAN DONOR CARDS

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse accordingly presented a Bill to enable potential adult organ donors to specify the uses to which their organs may be put: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 228.]

Orders of the Day — Public Order Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

RIOT

Lords amendments: No. 1, in page 2, line 9, leave out "life" and insert
a term not exceeding 10 years".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
As hon. Members will know, 10 years was the maximum sentence recommended for riot by the Law Commission. The Government accepted that recommendation in the White Paper. We did so in the knowledge that the recommendation was in line with current sentencing practice, but last November a sentence of life imprisonment was handed down to a football hooligan for riot. That sentence was taken to appeal. The Government thought it right to preserve the position pending the appeal. Therefore, the maximum sentence of life was laid down in the Bill. The Court of Appeal has stated its views. The Government listened to the views expressed by the Opposition and in the other place. We have always approached this matter with an open mind. We therefore accept the amendment from the other place, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on assuming the office of Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. We worked with him— or against him, if he cares to look at it that way — during the record sittings in Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Although we had our differences, we came to have considerable regard for him. We welcome him to his present position. We hope that he will maintain in his present position all the views on Home Office legislation that he expressed from below the Gangway. That can only lead to a massive improvement in the Government's legislation.
We are glad that the Government accepted this amendment in the House of Lords, and we support it in this place. We regard it as a possible noxious absurdity that sentence legislation should be effected by a sentence handed down by the courts. It is for Parliament to set sentences and for the courts to administer them, not the other way around.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I join the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in congratulating the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on his ministerial appointment. I, too, am glad that the Government accept that the sentence for the offence of riot should be limited to a maximum of 10 years. This raises an issue of importance and principle—maximum sentences—which has been debated many times in many places. In this small part of the legislation the Government have accepted the principle that the maximum sentence


should be a realistic maximum related to the conduct of the offence. I hope that the Government will recognise the need to make other maximum sentences a realistic reflection of the worst manifestation of the offence envisaged, rather than continue the practice whereby maximum sentences are enacted at an unrealistically high level.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on his promotion. I remember his strictures to be brief when he was a Whip and we dared to speak in Committee.
On Second Reading I commended the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by Judge Michael Argyle on the Chelsea football fan. In Committee I spoke in favour of retaining the sentence of life imprisonment. At that stage the Minister said that he would wait to see what happened on appeal before deciding whether to accept an amendment tabled by the Opposition.
I am concerned with whether the sentence of life imprisonment for riot, which was imposed last year by a judge, should he retained. When that sentence was announced many people were surprised and shocked, but I believe that the public at large thought that it was fair. They believed that it was necessary as a deterrent to ensure that similar acts did not take place. If I remember correctly, even the official Opposition were quiet in their condemnation. Public support for the sentence was almost uniform. It is wrong for the Conservative Government, who believe in law and order, and who have been elected twice on a strong law and order policy, to reduce a sentence which a judge felt was appropriate as recently as last year.
I shall not divide the House on the amendment, but I would support any hon. Member who felt inclined to do so because I believe that this is a sentence which should be available and which the House proposes unwisely to reduce.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) about the reduction from life imprisonment to 10 years as the sentence for riot. I believe that the culpability and participation of some people involved in incidents such as the Handsworth riots, in which sections of the town were burnt down, people died and extensive looting occurred, are such that they merit a sentence longer than 10 years.
On Second Reading I had to declare an interest because I was involved in defending the man who was subsequently described as the "fat man" in the Chelsea riot case. Having read the papers, I fully support the view of the Court of Appeal in that case that the sentence of life imprisonment was longer than was merited on the facts. But there are situations in which the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of riot is appropriate. I shall not divide the House because of my views, but I lay down a marker: there may come a time in the not too distant future when we shall regret the decision to reduce the sentence to 10 years. To a large extent we are devaluing the sentences imposed on those who commit other offences described in the Bill. There will be a temptation when charges are laid in serious cases for judges to impose lesser sentences rather than consider them as more serious offences. Perhaps in years to come we shall look back at this debate and live to regret our decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(4) Notice must be delivered to a police station—

(a) in the police area in which it is proposed the procession will start, or
(b) where it is proposed the procession will start in Scotland and cross into England, in the first police area in England on the proposed route."

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5.

Mr. Hogg: I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) for their kind words. We all served on the Standing Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which had 59 sittings.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman has a badge to prove it.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that I have a badge to prove it. I do not think that I was given one, but I know that the right hon. Member for Gorton has one to prove it. After 59 sittings, we had subjected the Bill to careful and detailed scrutiny. It was a pleasure to work with hon. Members, and I look forward to doing so again.
It might be helpful if I summarise what the group of amendments will do. Amendment No. 2 is designed to provide that where a public procession of which notice is required under clause I I is to pass through more than one police force area, notice need be given only in the area in which it starts. Paragraph (b) of the amendment provides for marches that start in Scotland. In such cases notice must be given in the first police force area in England through which the march is intended to go.
Amendment No. 3 is a more technical amendment. It is intended to ensure consistency in phraseology throughout.
Amendment No. 4 establishes a requirement that banning orders made under clause 13 and not made in writing should be recorded in writing as soon as practicable thereafter. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that banning orders, or a record of them, will always be available in writing.
Amendment No. 5 does no more than make explicit what was always implicit.

Mr. Kaufman: We particularly welcome the principle amendment in the group, because we were concerned about the burdens imposed on those organising marches delivering a large number of notices. We therefore welcome the measure and support the Government's acceptance of this group of amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause

MEANING OF "RACIAL HATRED"

Lords amendment: No. 6, before clause 17, insert the following new clause—
. In this Part "racial hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 26, 30, 31, 34 and 35.

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I shall have to take a little longer to explain what this group of amendments seeks to achieve than I took in considering the previous group.
My hon. Friend the then Minister of State undertook in Committee to consider bringing forward an amendment to extend part III of the Bill to broadcasting, films, videos, sound recordings and other media. That is essentially the purpose of all these new clauses and amendments. It proved difficult to make the framework of part III accommodate these other media and to ensure that consistency was maintained between the offences as they affect the various forms of communication in question. For that reason, it has been necessary to rewrite part III in its entirety. I apologise for that, but it was necessary if we were to achieve the undertakings that we gave.
The result is that these amendments are very different in form to clauses 17 to 24 as they stood when the Bill was last before the House. Despite appearances, what the amendments seek to achieve is relatively simple. They retain the existing provisions of part III, but they make appropriate changes and additions to bring other media within the scope of the Bill.
4.30 pm
We decided that, as part III will include other media, it should be comprehensive. There are existing statutory offences, such as incitement to racial hatred in section 5 of the Theatres Act 1968 and section 27 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. We thought it more appropriate to bring those offences into part III, which is what we have sought to do in the new clauses.
It might be helpful if I explain briefly each of the new clauses. The first new clause—which will be clause 17 if accepted — defines "racial hatred." Although the wording is slightly different from that which formerly appeared, there is no change in the substantive meaning. In making the amendments, it seemed appropriate that the definition of "racial hatred", which is at the centre of part III, should appear at the commencement of part III rather than be tucked away in some interpretation clause at the end of that part.
The second new clause—which would be clause 18 if accepted—is broadly equivalent to the former clause 19, which dealt with the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or gestures intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. The two changes in the wording will clarify the activities to which the offence will apply.
First, the new clause refers to the use of words or behaviour—and I stress "behaviour". That is to ensure that forms of behaviour are caught that would not necessarily be caught by the phrase "words or gestures", but which in themselves may well be threatening, abusive

or insulting and capable of stirring up racial hatred. In so far as any change has been made, it has been to extend the scope of the offence.
The second significant change is that the new clause refers to the display of written material. That will catch, for example, banners and placards. It was always our intention that such activities should be caught, but we felt it right to put the position wholly beyond doubt.
The third new clause, which would be clause 19 if accepted, is equivalent to the former clause 17. The wording is slightly different, but, in effect, we are dealing with the same animal.
The fourth new clause is new to part III, but its substance is not new. Here, of course, I am referring to what will be clause 20 if it is accepted. The clause replaces section 5 of the Theatres Act 1968 and brings it into line with the other provisions of part III. It was originally intended to achieve that by way of an amendment to the Theatres Act 1968 which formerly appeared in section 2(3). However, we decided that it was more logical to incorporate the relevant provisions within the body of part III.
The fifth new clause, which will be clause 21 if accepted, is entirely new. It is intended to deal with the distribution, showing or playing of visual or sound recordings, including videos, films and sound tapes. This clause is framed in parallel terms to that dealing with the publication or distribution of written material. The offences are similar. Under the third new clause—which will be clause 19 if accepted—it is not an offence to write offensive material. The offence consists of its publication or distribution to the public or a section of it. Individuals are free to write what they like. It is only when there may be public order consequences that the criminal law comes into play. Similarly, under the fifth new clause, it is an offence to distribute, show or play to the public or a section of the public a threatening, abusive or insulting recording with the intention or likelihood of stirring up racial hatred. It will not be an offence merely to make an offensive recording.
The sixth new clause — which, if accepted, will be clause 22 — deals with broadcasting and cable programmes. The provisions are adopted from those which appear in schedule 2, amending the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 which deals with cable programmes only. The new clause brings within the scope of part III all forms of broadcasting and cable service, except transmissions of BBC and Independent Broadcasting Authority programmes.
The seventh new clause—clause 23, if accepted—is broadly equivalent to former clause 18 in making it an offence in certain circumstances to possess racially inflammatory material. Material changes have been made to take account not only of the inclusion of other media in part III but of the specific inclusion within the second new clause of written material such as placards.
I do not need to say very much in detail on the other new clauses. They reproduce those clauses in part III, as we last considered it, which deal with entry, search, forfeiture, procedure, punishment, offences by corporations and the interpretation of part III. There has been some rearrangement and certain changes to take account of other media, but no changes of substance. Amendments Nos. 19 to 26, revising the existing part III, and the amendments to schedules 2 and 3 are consequential.
This has been a fairly swift scamper through a fairly complex part of the Bill. I hope that what I have said makes the position clear to right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I should like to give a broad welcome to the amendments that the Minister has just introduced. We all agree that racism or encouraging racial hatred must be evil. We have had statutes in regard to these matters for the past 10 years, since the Race Relations Act 1976 amended the Public Order Act 1936.
Difficulties at that time and since have been reflected in a reluctance to prosecute, and sometimes there have been failed prosecutions. I very much hope that the net effect of the Bill, including the specific new amendments from the other place which the Minister has described, will result in legislation being more effective.
Hon. Members will be aware that some of the other changes that the Minister did not describe in detail were made in Committee. I refer to those changes as well as to those that the Minister has just described. I hope that the net effect of the changes will result in successful prosecutions where material causes great offence. For example, some nasty items were in circulation during the Fulham by-election. At the time it was judged that a prosecution was not desirable because it would not be effective — or at least, there was a reluctance to prosecute.
More recently, there have been items which again have given many people cause for concern. For example, when visas were introduced at Heathrow airport, one of our daily papers might have been liable for prosecution had the new arrangements been in force. In one newspaper there was also a cartoon, which has been described as the "Arab pigs" cartoon. I hope that that sort of material would now be liable for prosecution under the new arrangements.
I am especially pleased that the Government have accepted many of the Labour party's suggestions. Indeed, I am sure that the Minister will agree that many of the suggestions he has described derive much of their strength from the arguments put forward by the Opposition in Committee. I particularly welcome the fact that the offences will now be arrestable. I welcome the amendment which means that this legislation will not merely be confined to public places and I welcome the fact that the provisions cover videos, tapes, cable and theatres. Although it comes a little later, I also welcome the extension of this part of the Bill to cover football supporters travelling to and from football grounds.
I must mention two difficulties which, on my interpretation, will still remain. The incitement to racial hatred has further consequences than simply that offence. It encourages some of the extreme elements in our society to indulge in racial harassment and attacks. I had hoped that the Government would find some way of making that an offence in the legislation. Alas, that was not to be.
My second concern is that some of the material which would now be liable for prosecution under the Bill will still escape because it is imported. I referred some such material to the Home Office not long ago. The material came from the United States from an organisation called New Order. The Minister of State, in a letter to me, said:
the Attorney General has now looked at these papers and … takes the view that the material is extremely offensive and would merit prosecution if publication or distribution within this country could be proved.
I fear that there is still a danger, despite the tightening up in the arrangements, that some such material can come in

by post. However, I am not able to make any suggestion to the Government on this matter. Unless such material can easily he identified from the outside of the envelope, I do not think that we can do much about it. I would not suggest that mail coming into this country should be looked at to see whether it contains such items.

Mr. David Winnick: I accept my hon. Friend's last point. However, is he aware that I have received such literature in the post, supposedly posted in the United States? I have not been able to check. I sent the details to the Home Secretary, and he replied along the lines indicated by my hon. Friend. Does he agree that sonic further action is necessary to try to curb this race hate material, which is deeply offensive to so many people in our country?

Mr. Dubs: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Such material is deeply offensive, and I hope that we can find some way of dealing with it. The best way would be to tackle it at source, but that means in other countries.
Some other material which came into this country sonic years ago — I believe it was printed in Spain — came through an anonymous post box in Dublin. Again, despite all our efforts, it has proved impossible to pin down anybody in this country as being a prime distributor of that type of material. I mention that because if there were more material coming in in that way, it would, to a certain extent, negate the improvements that we are discussing.
Despite my reservations, I welcome the new provisions. We agree that racism is a scourge. It causes fear and humiliation to people who are attacked. I very much hope that this new measure will be effective. Of course, I would not be so optimistic as to say that it will eliminate all the material that it is designed to eliminate. However, I hope that it will significantly lessen the likelihood of material of that sort being produced and published and prevent racist slogans being used. I hope that it will make our society a little healthier than it is at present.

Mr. Hind: I welcome these amendments, as I am sure most hon. Members will, especially Conservative Members. Some of us who were here for the debate about visas find it ironic that the party which was constantly accused in that debate of being racist should be the party which brings forward a major change in our race relations legislation by codifying our existing legislation in part III of the Bill and extending the legislation to videos, films and sound recordings.
Perhaps this part of the Bill, now a weapon in the hands of the police to help stamp out unpleasant racist attitudes in our community, will be reciprocated by many of those who are stimulating the opposition to the police in our communities, especially those who are encouraging the more divisive elements in our ethnic communities to reject the attitudes of the police. I am thinking particularly of Mr. Bernie Grant who, following the Tottenham riot, deliberately stimulated anti-police feeling. I am also thinking of the attitude of many Labour councils which keep the police out of schools because they are regarded as racist and against our ethnic communities.
I hope that we will see an end to some of the ridiculous directives from some local education authorities, especially the Inner London education authority, where black coffee is now to be treated as coffee without milk and Blackheath


is to be known only as the heath. Perhaps this policy will encourage the community to recognise that we need a colour-blind policy, under which everybody is treated equally and the divisions and differences between our various communities are not rammed down the throat of the adult population and schoolchildren. Perhaps it will lead to change. I commend these thoughts to the House and wholeheartedly support this progressive piece of legislation.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I should like to join other hon. Members by broadly welcoming these new clauses. It is very rare that we can look at a piece of legislation and say that it simplifies the law. In this case we can see provisions which simplify the law by providing a comprehensive code, all of which is to be found in one short statute and in one place, to deal with the incitement of racial hatred.
The incitement of racial hatred is hateful and insidious. We all condemn direct personal violence: such violence is easily perceived, whereas the incitement of racial hatred is difficult to perceive. Its particular insidiousness is the way in which an emotive appeal can be achieved, especially among young people, many of whom may not fully understand the form, force or purpose of the incitement. I hope that those who produce publications and videos and who demonstrate in an attempt to stir up racial hatred will recognise that this is a powerful new piece of legislation in our armoury, which all of us wish to use to create an anti-racist and even-handed society.
I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) was a little unhelpful. He failed to realise that the provisions in these new clauses are indeed even-handed. They apply equally to those who are white and may wish to stir up racial hatred against those who are black, as to those who come from a non-white ethnic group and who wish to stir up racial hatred against white people. It seems right and proper when we legislate that such even-handedness should be apparent from the beginning in these statutory provisions.
The use of the word "behaviour" in Lords amendment No. 7 is infinitely preferable to "gestures" which appeared formerly. I am still a little worried about how far these provisions will cover the use of certain emblems which may be used for racial purposes. One always tends to cite the swastika as an example, but other emblems with racist intent are used by various groups. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the provisions in the new clauses will be sufficient to deal with at least those emblems which are readily identifiable as racist.

Mr. David Clelland: While I also welcome the amendments as a major step forward in protecting minorities from discrimination, I wonder whether there is an anomaly in one of the amendments which may have been overlooked, or whether I am misinterpreting what I am reading.
Lords amendment No. 7(2) states:
An offence under this section may he committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
In clause 8 "dwelling" means
any structure or part of a structure occupied as a person's home or as other living accommodation (whether the occupation is separate or shared with others).

Does that mean that material which is threatening, abusive or insulting may be displayed in a hotel foyer or in a lodging house? Those quotations would appear to mean that they are dwellings and so exceptions to the amendment.

Mr. Max Madden: I, too, support these amendments. In doing so, it is important that the whole House believes that this is not merely cosmetic legislation. It would be a tragedy if the Government were securing these laws merely to give themselves a cloak of respectability without any determination that they should be used effectively against all those who seek to encourage or further racial hatred, regardless of their colour.
It is also important that the Government, in particular the Home Office, should be at pains to ensure that the conditions in which racial hatred flourishes are not furthered by Ministers. I have a letter from Anne Owers, general secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which states:
On 21 October, there was an arson attempt at JCWI's office. Two people broke in with the sole aim of starting a fire. Fortunately, the Fire Service was alerted in time to prevent serious damage.
The arson attempt followed racist letters threatening violence to JCWI and members of our staff. It is clearly a result of JCWI's uncompromising public stand against racist immigration and nationality laws, and in particular our recent opposition to visas for people from the Indian subcontinent and West Africa. We believe that the government's decision to impose visas only on people from those countries, and the inflammatory media coverage over the last few weeks, have encouraged and legitimised racist attitudes. Attacks on black people and those who support them are an inevitable result.
JCWI was lucky. If the fire had not been noticed in time, we would have lost more than our building. We would have lost our unique records, detailing British immigration and nationality law, practice and policy over the last nineteen years. There could have been serious injury to staff members. We have to improve the security of our building.
Earlier, I spoke about the responsibility of the Government, particularly Home Office Ministers, to exercise responsibility and restraint in discussing matters relating to race. Therefore, I was deeply disturbed by the Home Secretary's speech on Friday night, which was widely reported. The Daily Express's version was:
Home Secretary Douglas Hurd yesterday brought immigration to the forefront of the next General Election with a blistering attack on Labour's race policy.
He said their policies were wrong and stupid. And he accused leader Neil Kinnock and Shadow Home Secretary Gerald Kaufman of speaking with 'forked tongues'.
Then he lashed Left-wing councils by accusing them of racial witchhunts that divide communities …
He said there was a limit to the number of newcomers that any society can absorb without coming under strain.
'We have tightened the rules preventing the admission of those who are likely to become a burden on public funds. We shall further ensure that our immigration controls remain in good repair.
There is wide support for our system of immigration control, which is firm and fair. It would be a great boon if it could be accepted by all political parties.
The rules apply to all regardless of race, they do not seek to block people already settled here from being joined by their spouse and children.'
Labour's pledges to scrap the two Acts would result in a large increase in the numbers of people eligible to settle in Britain, he said.
In his remarks, the Home Secretary sought to contrast the statements of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who rightly said that the Labour party was pledged to repeal the Immigration Act 1971 and the British Nationality Act 1981, with alleged statements


of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the net result of scrapping that legislation would be an increase of only 1,000 people into the United Kingdom. Such remarks, coming within days of the controversial debate on the wisdom of the Government's decision to introduce visas, were inflammatory. The Home Secretary's speech was designed to frighten considerable sections of the British public and to confuse and divide our community. It was wholly unhelpful to the promotion of good race and community relations.

Mr. Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt, but we are debating part Ill of the Public Order Bill, not a speech given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last week. With due respect, we are going a little wide of the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair follows the debate carefully. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is relating his remarks to Lords amendment No. 6.

Mr. Madden: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was following the spirit of the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). My conclusions are certainly different from his, but my remarks accurately mirror his remarks.
Our debates on race are of fundamental importance and no Labour Member in any way underestimates their importance or that of the promotion of good race and community relations. We have considerable interest in ensuring that good race and community relations are promoted, regardless of colour, race and sex. I appeal to Home Office Ministers and the Conservative party to ensure that the debate is conducted on the basis of fact and I urge the Home Secretary to show much more caution and responsibility in any further utterances which he may wish to make on the subject.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and I trust that he will continue to abominate secondary legislation.
Although I welcome the new clause, I regret that it does not deal with incitement to religious hatred. I have studied the case of Mania v. Dowell Lee which was before the House of Lords. The basic argument was that religious hatred, in certain circumstances, could be construed to be racial hatred. I regret that the opportunity to deal with the problem of religious hatred has been missed.

5 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to respond to the four points that have been raised. The speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) was typical of him and it did no credit to the cause that he is seeking to promote. Anybody who knows my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is perfectly aware that no Minister has done more to promote good race relations. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Bradford, West reflects on his remarks today he will regret them.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) questioned whether emblems would be covered by the Bill. I refer him to the definition clause, where he will see that written material covers emblems. I trust that that reassures him.
The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) raised a complicated matter. If the hon. Gentleman studies the definition clause—it is a far-ranging clause—he will see that, in certain circumstances, a hotel would be classified as a dwelling. The residential parts—that is, the bedrooms— would be a dwelling but the common parts would not. Probably—I say probably because in the end this is a matter for the courts — the same approach would be taken to boarding houses. The bedrooms in a hotel and in a boarding house would be treated as a dwelling for the purpose of the Bill, but common parts of either building would not be treated as such. I trust that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) for his kind observations. I shall always treat with suspicion the process of secondary legislation, but I must say—as a candid man—that I suspect I shall use it on occasion or at least advocate to the House that we use it.
Religious hatred is a difficult and important matter. The Government have decided not to include religious hatred in Part III of the Bill because we came to the conclusion that attempts at control would be unenforceable. It would open up too many concepts and too many circumstances in which the law would be required to intervene. If such a provision had been contained in the Bill, we would have created for ourselves unenforceable legislation. I hope what we have done is to restrict our efforts to those areas where we can hope, reasonably, to enforce the law. In that event I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause

CONTAMINATION OF OR INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS WITH INTENTION OF CAUSING PUBLIC ALARM OR ANXIETY, ETC

Lords amendment: No. 27, before clause 33, insert the following new clause—
 . — (1) It is an offence for a person, with the intention—

(a) of causing public alarm or anxiety, or
(b) of causing injury to members of the public consuming or using the goods, or
(c) of causing economic loss to any person by reason of the goods being shunned by members of the public, or
(d) of causing economic loss to any person by reason of steps taken to avoid any such alarm or anxiety, injury or loss,

to contaminate or interfere with goods, or make it appear that goods have been contaminated or interfered with, or to place goods which have been contaminated or interfered with, or which appear to have been contaminated or interfered with, in a place where goods of that description are consumed used, sold or otherwise supplied.
(2) It is also an offence for a person, with any such intention as is mentioned in paragraph (a), (c) or (d) of subsection (1), to threaten that he or another will do, or to claim that he or another has done, any of the acts mentioned' in that subsection.
(3) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of any of the following articles with a view to the commission of an offence under subsection (1)—

(a) materials to be used for contaminating or interfering with goods or making it appear that goods have been contaminated or interfered with, or


(b) goods which have been contaminated or interfered with, or which appear to have been contaminated or interfered with.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine or both, or
(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

(5) In this section "goods" includes substances whether natural or manufactured and whether or not incorporated in or mixed with other goods.
(6) The reference in subsection (2) to a person claiming that certain acts have been committed does not include a person who in good faith reports or warns that such acts have been, or appear to have been, committed.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is interesting because it introduces a new criminal offence to strengthen the law to deal with the contamination of consumer goods and associated threats and claims. The House will no doubt be aware that in recent years there have been a number of incidents involving the contamination of food products and other consumer goods. It is notable that many such acts have been carried out by members of extremist organisations, who have attempted to force companies to change their policies, for example, in relation to research on animals. In other cases the motive has been simple extortion.
The perpetrators seek to cast doubts on the wholesomeness of large quantities of a company's products. For obvious reasons it is not possible for a company to check each and every one of its products, and therefore it may have no alternative but to empty its shelves and destroy large stocks. This can obviously cause large-scale economic losses.
The law already contains a number of provisions which apply to the circumstances which we have witnessed in recent years, but none of them were designed to deal primarily with the mischief that I have mentioned. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment, which I commend to it.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

POWER TO DIRECT TRESPASSERS TO LEAVE LAND

Lords amendment: No. 28, before clause 33, insert the following new clause—
. — (1) If the senior police officer reasonably believes that two or more persons have entered land as trespassers and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and—

(a) that any of those persons has caused damage to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his, or
(b) that those persons have between them brought twelve or more vehicles on to the land,

he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land.
(2) If a person knowing that such a direction has been given which applies to him—

(a) fails to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable, or

(b) having left again enters the land as a trespasser within the period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given,

he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months of a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
(3) A constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence under this section may arrest him without warrant.
(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show—

(a) that his original entry on the land was not as a trespasser, or
(b) that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable or, as the case may be, for again entering the land as a trespasser.

(5) In this section—
land" does not include

(a) buildings other than—

(i) agricultural buildings within the meaning of section 26(4) of the General Rate Act 1967, or
(ii) scheduled monuments within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, or

(b) land forming part of a highway;

occupier" means the person entitled to possession of the land by virtue of an estate or interest held by him;
property" means property within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971;
senior police officer" means the most senior in rank of the police officers present at the scene;
trespasser", in relation to land, means a person who is a trespasser as against the occupier of the land;
vehicle" includes a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960; and a person may be regarded for the purposes of this section as having the purpose of residing in a place notwithstanding that he has a home elsewhere.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Kaufman: I disagree with the proposed Lords amendment, and I beg to move amendment (a) thereto, in line 2, leave out 'the senior police officer' and insert 'a police officer of the rank of inspector or above'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take also the following amendments to the proposed Lords amendment:

(a), in line 14, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'four'.
(b), in line 20, leave out from 'practicable' to end of line 23.
(c), leave out lines 54 and 55.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Grouped with this amendment are a series of amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition. It seems desirable that I should argue the case for the new clause, and the right hon. Gentleman will then have the opportunity to speak to his amendments in the context of what has been proposed. With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments at the end of the debate.
The House will recall that before the recess a great deal of concern was expressed about the mass invasion of land by groups such as the hippie convoy. I do not believe that I am going too far if I suggest that the House was united in its sympathy for people like Mr. Attwell and felt a sense of outrage at the degradations that were caused to him.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear, in answer to a private notice


question, that the Government were considering strengthening the law to deal with mass aggravated trespass. The result of those considerations is the new clause now before the House, which was moved in another place by my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness. The new clause does not criminalise simple trespass, but creates a new police power to direct trespassers to leave the land under strictly limited circumstances. Those circumstances are set out in detail in subsection (1).
Basic preconditions must apply before the new power can be used, and senior police officers must reasonably believe that two or more persons satisfy certain criteria. They must ascertain that persons have entered the land as trespassers or are present there for the common purpose of residing on the land for any period and
that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave
These criteria must be satisfied.
The first precondition is to ensure that the power is not available where a landowner has given permission for those persons to camp on his land but has subsequently withdrawn that permission. In those circumstances persons entering the land have not done so as trespassers.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: My chief concern, in common with other hon. Members, is the protection and welfare of our ancient monuments and our antiquity. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has considered what would happen if a person paid the entrance fee to visit Stonehenge, thereby becoming in a sense an invitee or licensee, but then created difficulties. Is that person excluded from the provisions before us?

Mr. Hogg: There are two answers. We have extended the meaning of "land" to include historic monuments within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. This was in response to arguments by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu in another place. However, that does not answer my hon. Friend's question. He asked whether the power comes into existence when people enter lawfully, not as trespassers. The answer is no. The power does not come into existence when people enter as lawful licensees or otherwise with authority. The power to order someone to leave applies only when people enter as trespassers.
If a person, having entered lawfully, becomes a trespasser in the sense that consent is withdrawn, the landowner has a right to go to the civil court for ordinary civil relief.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does that mean that a farmer is not protected if the trespassers go on to his land and encamp upon a farm track, not outwith that farm track, and the farm track is designated as a public footpath on which they have a right to go for a walk, for example? That seems to be a regrettable lacuna.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Member asks a particular and interesting question. I shall reply off the cuff, but if I am wrong I shall write to him. —[Interruption.] I always have to contemplate being in error, but if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) contemplated that possibility, often he would be awake half the night.
It is typical of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) to pick up a difficult matter such as this. It is no wonder that he makes a lot of money at the Bar. He asks what happens if we have to deal with

a farm on which there is a public right of way. My immediate response is that the farmer remains the occupier of that bit of land, although it is a public right of way. Provided that the people stay on the footpath they might be all right, but if they stray off one inch they will become trespassers and the power will be triggered.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Not necessarily.

Mr. Hogg: Of course not necessarily, because it is a matter for the courts in each case. I think that provided people stay full square on the public way, they might not be trespassers. It also depends upon the motive. If the motive is to do something for which the public footpath was not created, they might be trespassers, because they propose to do something not contemplated by the existence of the footpath. Footpaths are for walking along. My advice — a wonderful phrase to use on such occasions—is that a public footpath is a highway and that camping upon it is an obstruction, which is an offence, but it is not covered by this power.

Mr. Hind: I should like to assist my hon. Friend. Subsection (5) of the proposed new clause contains a definition of land. It states:
'land' does not include … land forming part of a highway.
If a footpath is a right of way, is it part of the highway within that definition? Does my hon. Friend believe that farm tracks or footpaths are not part of the highway, so that the power will exist in the circumstances that we are discussing? Surely a public right of way is part of the highway and therefore the power cannot exist.

Mr. Hogg: I shall not go much further. "Land" is defined in subsection (5) of the proposed new clause, and it does not include land which forms part of a highway. I understand that a public footpath is a highway. If that is right, camping on it, although perhaps an obstruction, will not trigger the powers proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Alex Carlile: That is a major lacuna.

Mr. Hogg: I doubt that. Anyone who knows about the countryside — as I do, and the hon. and learned Gentleman does not — knows that bringing a large number of caravans on to a footpath and squatting there without trespassing elsewhere is a preposterous idea.
"Land" is defined so as to exclude buildings other than agricultural buildings or scheduled monuments. It also excludes highways and highway verges. All other land, including common land, is caught. The requirement that the trespassers must have
the common purpose of residing
excludes ramblers, bird watchers and other similar users of the countryside from the scope of the power.
The phrase
residing there for any period
was taken from the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Subsection (5) of the new clause provides that
a person may be regarded for the purposes of this section as having the purpose of residing in a place nothwithstanding that he has a home elsewhere.
The third test, that reasonable steps should have been taken by the occupier to request the trespassers to leave, provides an opportunity for trespassers to leave without the police becoming involved. If a large number of trespassers are present, it is not necessary for the occupier


to ask each person individually to leave. A general request to leave through, for example, a loud hailer used either by the occupier or someone acting on his behalf will suffice.

Sir John Farr: Subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new clause contains the words "reasonably practicable". What is the definition of those words? Will they not create a lawyers' paradise? To a non-lawyer, that is an ill-defined phrase.

Mr. Hogg: There is no definition of the words "reasonably practicable". That will have to be determined by the courts in the context of the facts. It is not possible for the House, or anyone else away from an incident, to define in anything but the most general terms what "reasonably practicable" means.

Mr. William Cash: The opening words of the new clause are:
If the senior police officer reasonably believes that two or more persons have entered land as trespassers".
That is different from assuming that the clause will operate only when people are trespassers. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), because the question whether a person has been a trespasser will be determined only in the light of proceedings and whether the court believes that the senior police officer reasonably believed that the person was a trespasser.
I happen to believe — I hope that my hon. Friend agrees—that this is the only practicable way of dealing with the problem. There are many circumstances in which s people try to use the law as a means of avoiding an ordinary, common-sense situation. For practical purposes, there should have been a remedy for what happened in Staffordshire, near Salisbury and elsewhere. Does my hon. Friend agree that it depends on what the police officer, in the first place, reasonably believes to be the case?

Mr. Hogg: Yes. My hon. Friend is correct. I am sorry if I gave a contrary impression. The test is satisfied when the senior police officer "reasonably believes".
We now come to the three criteria that I have already mentioned. It is not necessary to prove as a fact that each one of the three criteria is satisfied. It is sufficient that he "reasonably believes". I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.
If the senior police officer "reasonably believes" that the three conditions that I have mentioned have been satisfied, he then has reasonably to believe that one of a further three tests has been met before he can exercise his power to direct trespassers to leave.

Mr. Sayeed: As most landowners are not lawyers, a little guidance would be helpful as to what the word "reasonable" means in the context of "reasonable steps". Will my hon. Friend confirm that using a loud hailer to ask people to leave and sticking up notices which are clearly visible around the land would be reasonable action, so that landowners who are not lawyers will understand the meaning of the word "reasonable"?

Mr. Hogg: All that I can say about the meaning of the word "reasonable" is that the test which the court will apply is objective.

Mr. Kaufman: It is subjective.

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is objective, and it is the test which the court would apply when judging action in the context of the circumstances which existed. It may well be that the use of a loud hailer is reasonable. The affixing of notices, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) might be reasonable. I cannot define these things, and even if I did it would not be binding. In the end the courts will determine what is reasonable. They have to do that throughout a whole range of law.

Mr. Kaufman: If the Minister regards the interventions of his hon. Friends as helpful, he should be so lucky as to what helpful means.

Mr. Cash: Be nice.

Mr. Kaufman: I have been nice. I have done my bit for the afternoon and cannot go on being nice for the whole day.
The Minister said that it is an objective test. I advise him to get the civil servants in the Box to send for a dictionary, even a small one, because the amendment begins:
If the senior police officer reasonably believes".
That relates to something that is going on in the head of the senior police officer and must be subjective. There is no objectivity about an individual's belief.

Mr. Hogg: So far as that observation goes, it is true. The trouble is that it does not go far enough, because in determining whether the police officer's state of mind was reasonable or unreasonable the court has regard to objective, not subjective, criteria. Courts always approach problems of this sort in such a way.

Mr. Alex Carlile: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (.Mr. Carlile) agrees with me. I am afraid that on this matter I must tell the right hon. Member for Gorton that a clever point was badly made. It was a clever point, but it happened to be the wrong one. That was a misfortune from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but not from mine.
Only one of the tests must be satisfied; that any of those present has caused damage to property on the land, or that any of the trespassers has used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of the occupier, or that between them the trespassers have brought 12 or more vehicles on to the land. It is only at that point, if those subsequent conditions, or any one of them, are satisfied, that the power arises for the police officer to require the trespassers to leave. If the trespassers obey a police direction to leave, no offence is committed. However, the offence is not the trespass, but the refusal to obey a direction to leave.
Subsection (2)(a) provides the back-up offence. Anyone who, knowing a direction has been given which applies to him, disobeys that direction, and fails to leave as soon as is reasonably practicable, will commit an offence. In order to deal with the situation where trespassers obey a direction to leave but re-enter the land, subsection (2)(b) provides that anyone who re-enters the land as a trespasser within three months is also guilty of an offence. Both offences are triable in the magistrates courts and carry a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £1,000.
Subsection (3) provides that a constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under subsection (2).
Subsection (4) provides two defences for anyone accused of an offence under subsection (2). If he can show that when he first entered the land he was not in fact a trespasser, or that he had a reasonable excuse not to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable, or to re-enter it as a trespasser, he will be not guilty of the offence.
Subsection (5) provides definitions of certain words used in the clause. In particular, "land", as I have said, is defined so as to exclude buildings other than agricultural buildings or buildings which are scheduled monuments, and highways and highway verges. "Occupier" is defined in such a way as to protect the owner or, in appropriate circumstances, the tenant. "Property" is defined by reference to the existing statutory definition in section 10(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
The new clause will provide the police with the necessary powers to deal with aggravated trespass by groups such as the convoy without having adverse effects on ramblers and other such users of the countryside. The new power is, as the events of the summer have shown, reasonable and necessary. But we have also been extremely careful to ensure that it bites only on the particular mischief which caused so much anxiety this summer. I hope that the new clause is carefully balanced, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Kaufman: I am not in the least surprised that the Home Secretary has suddenly found urgent business in Europe and that the former Minister of State—the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) — has got himself moved to another Department, because neither of them could have had the bare-faced cheek to sit on the Government Front Bench and support the new clause after their behaviour in Committee. The reason why the Under-Secretary of State is here in lonely isolation moving the amendment is that he is the only member of the Home Office team with completely clean hands on this matter.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend is a charming fellow.

Mr. Kaufman: He is charming, but that is a different matter.
Manifestations or phenomena such as the hippie convoy are deeply unpopular with the people, and where they cause damage or upset to farmers or landowners they are to be reprehended. At the same time, it is important that we do not use the weight of the criminal law to bear unfairly on people because they have unconventional life styles, and for no other reason. In a democracy, people have the right, without involvement with the criminal law, to pursue life styles that most of us would not wish to pursue. The Government's reaction to those events has not been in proportion to the harm and the aggravation caused. At the same time, I am sympathetic to people such as the farmer, Mr. Attwell, who have found themselves at a grave disadvantage and in considerable trouble as a result of the arrival on their land of groups of people whom they do not wish to have there.
5.30 pm
If we wish to deal with such activities and protect private persons from having their property invaded or damaged and their livelihood affected, is that the right way

of doing it? Is it right to create a new criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment? That was not the view of the Home Secretary when he responded to an amendment moved by the the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) and supported by others of his hon. Friends in Committee.
When the hon. Gentleman moved that amendment the Home Secretary said:
the Association of Chief Police Officers would not welcome an extension of the clause 14 powers to private land. ACPO has told us that it did not wish trespassers to be dealt with in public order legislation.
He went on:
The police do not wish to be, as it were, at the beck and call of landowners to evict trespassers. The police fear that the measure might cause the complicated concept of criminal trespass to be brought into the law of the land."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 March 1986; c. 731.]
That was why the Home Secretary opposed the kind of change in the law which he is now responsible for introducing.
The Home Secretary went on to point out that there were other powers and that those powers should be used. He talked too about the power to enter private land because of breaches of the peace and the statutory power of entry to arrest for criminal damage. Those views were not changed when the Bill was dealt with on the Floor of the House on Report.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), then the Minister of State in charge of the Bill, must be quoted at length because his words are important. He said:
the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers are such that it is clear that it it not persuaded of the need for an extension of the new powers under clause 14 in the way that my hon. and learned Friend proposes".
That is the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), who is now a junior Minister. The Minister of State went on:
The police remain of the view that their existing powers to deal with criminal damage and breach of the peace, together with the offences in clauses 1 to 5, should be sufficient to cope with any real mischief that is likely to arise.
I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member far Mid-Bedfordshire underestimates the powers that will be available to the police
The Minister then explained why. He said:
Under the existing law, under the new offences and wider powers that are proposed in the Bill, and under the PACE powers, the police have power to enter private land and make arrests if there is a breach of the peace. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, they have powers to arrest anyone who has committed an offence if service of a summons is impracticable because of difficulties in establishing name and address. The Act give the police powers to enter land to prevent serious damage to property. Under the Bill,"—
the Public Order Bill—
all the public order offences which the House has been considering tonight will apply to both public and private land. We have deliberately extended the scope of clauses 4 and 5 to private land to catch the sort of behaviour in which peace convoys and other such groups indulge.
Nothing could have been clearer.

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. I am quoting from the hon. Member for Pudsey. The hon. Gentleman must get hold of his hon. Friend and intervene on him, not me.
The Minister went on:
Once the Bill is in force, anyone on private land who threatens violence or who behaves in a disorderly manner, or who is likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress, will commit an offence under sections 4 or 5, as they will become.


'It follows that with this wide range of powers—the police have told us that this will follow"—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No, the hon. Gentleman must get hold of the hon. Member for Pudsey, not me. I am simply quoting him.
The Minister went on:
the police have told us that this will follow"—
he is quoting the police in support of his very convincing arguments—
—the police should be able to deal with the real mischief, which lies in criminal damage, threatening behaviour and intimidation by those who happen to be trespassers.
The Minister went on:
involving the police in a greater extension of services to private landlords might well cause them"—
the police—
substantial difficulty.
He went on:
the root of the problem facing landowners whose land is invaded by the peace convoy is the slow enforcement process of the civil law.
We shall come to that in a moment.
The Minister went on:
we should not rush into further legislation until the new police powers to which I have referred have been tried and tested. The police believe that the totality of powers available to them will be sufficient.
That is the view of the police.
We are not in the business of heaping extra powers on the police, for their own sake.
He said:
a major change to the law on trespass is not something which we are presently minded to contemplate." — [Official Report, 30 April 1986; vol. 96, c. 1053–54.]
The Government have gone back on every one of those words, after firm statements by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State.
But then we got the hippie convoy and, most unfortunately, there are television sets at No. 10 Downing street, and the Prime Minister has an incorrigible tendency to watch television and then to press her bell and send for somebody. She keeps on doing it. She did it when she saw some football hooliganism and then we had last year's utterly pointless legislation which did nothing to stop the new outbreaks of football hooliganism.
The Prime Minister had another brainstorm about advertising on the BBC and failed again. Once again, it was the Prime Minister doing her "off with their heads, somebody must be summonsed" act. We had a Downing street committee and all this turmoil and action, despite the previous words.
While the matter was being worked out, while the poor old civil servants at the Home Office, who had most sensibly advised the Home Secretary, and whose advice had been accepted, were trying to work out something that would make some kind of sense, Ministers were treading very carefully indeed. Back Benchers were too. The hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, now the Under-Secretary of State, was cautious when supporting the amendments which were debated in Committee. He insisted that, to trigger the kind of amendments that he was advocating, the police must be able to establish a real risk of serious public disorder, serious damage to property, or serious disruption to the life of the community. There is nothing of that in the new clause. The new clause is triggered by a great deal less than that.
Lord Denning supported an amendment moved in the other place in the summer but he made it clear that he only wanted an amendment which would deal with people who intend to deprive an owner of his land — his use and occupation of the land. This amendment is far wider than that and does not meet Lord Denning's criteria.
Lord Glenarthur, another Minister who has now been removed from the Home Office in order that he should not have his words quoted against him, was extremely cautious when amendments were being debated in the other place on 16 July. He said:
there is already a civil law and indeed a speedy procedure for the recovery of the possession of land.
The hon. Member for Stafford had better think about that. Those are the words of one of his noble Friends, now removed to what the Prime Minister calls the far north—Scotland.
While talking about a possible change in the law, Lord Glenarthur said:
The circumstances we envisage which would trigger the police power would be similar to elements in my noble friend's amendments; entry as a trespasser, with a refusal to leave on request, coupled with a risk of causing serious damage to property and harassment or intimidation of the lawful occupier.
The new clause goes much further than that.
The lines which I have described are those upon which we are working at present; namely, a police power to evict trespassers in certain limited circumstances where they intend to reside on the land, refuse to leave, and threaten to cause serious damage to property and harassment or intimidation of the lawful occupier."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 1986; Vol. 478, c. 983–5.]
That threat to cause serious damage or harassment or intimidation is not in the new clause. It goes much wider than Lord Glenarthur said it would when he said that these matters would be considered. The new junior Minister, the Earl of Caithness, moved the clause and in doing so he made it clear that there was highly effective criminal law to deal with the mischief that his clause was supposed to deal with. He said:
where trespassers cause damage on entering land they may be committing an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
Addressing one of his noble Friends he said:
she will appreciate that it is an offence under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to take a vehicle without authority onto any land other than a highway," — [Official Report, House of Lords, 6 October 1986; Vol. 480, c. 102–4.]
It is a matter of contention between hon. Members. The noble Lord was making it clear that the scope of any such new offence should be extremely limited. But it is not limited, because the Home Secretary said that the new clause was unnecessary and he rejected the proposition when something along these lines was proposed. Even when the new clause was being thought about, a Minister speaking on the Bill in the other place said that it would have a far more limited and stringent scope than the scope of this wide new clause.
The new clause is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Legal expert after legal expert has said that the civil law is available and can operate quickly. It can operate within five days of service of proceedings and, as we have seen, that proceeding can be abridged to as little as one day. It need not be expensive and indeed, farmer Attwell, a member of the public who quite rightly attracted sympathy because of his predicament, obtained his remedy under order 113 of the Supreme Court rules. So did 25 other landowners in the Stonehenge area.
The Government were so confident about the basic efficacy of order 113 of the Supreme Court rules that the Lord Chancellor—a member of the Government not entirely unknown to the Under-Secretary of State —issued a consultation paper on order 113 with the aim of making the civil law more efficient, speedy and effective. The noble Lord issued a press notice on 3 October, only a month ago, in which he said:
Changes in the civil law procedure for the recovery of land from trespassers have been canvassed in a consultation paper issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Their object is to ensure that such cases are heard promptly. At present, a final order for possession may be made five days after the application is served on the defendants or sooner in urgent cases. It is proposed that the five-day period should be shortened to three days, with the power to shorten the period remaining. It is also intended to make it easier to serve the application on defendants whose names need not be known and who are occupying land rather than buildings. Any changes to the rules of court would probably come into force in the new year.
That is only a few weeks away. As I have said, that consultation paper was issued on 3 October and the Earl of Caithness moved this clause in another place three days later and the consultation period ended only last Friday. The Government have made a farce of the Lord Chancellor's whole exercise of trying to improve order 113, which has been shown in the courts to be a highly effective remedy for this mischief.

Mr. Sayeed: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he would have done or how the Lord Chancellor's guidance notes would have helped in the following situation. A bunch of tinkers parked a large number of caravans in a field at the bottom of the garden of one of my constituents. The people were evicted by the landowner and that cost him about £4,500. He is not a rich man. The tinkers have returned and the landowner cannot afford to evict them again.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman's constituent had better take this up with the Home Secretary, who said that the remedy available was satisfactory. He should also take it up with the Minister of State and with Lord Glenarthur who also said that the remedy was satisfactory. He could also take it up with the Lord Chancellor who believes that the remedy is inherently satisfactory but could be tightened up a bit. That is why he issued his consultation paper about order 113. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me I shall come to the reason why the course of action that he and the Government are proposing—that the police will enforce the civil law—is unsatisfactory and why a potential injustice to the hon. Gentleman's constituent might be counterbalanced by a severe injustice to others by criminalising this.
The Government have jumped their own gun. The new clause is firmly opposed by a number of groups of people whom the Under-Secretary of State might describe as objective, such as the Law Society. One of the reasons why the new clause is bad is that it imposes an unfair burden on the police officer who will have to administer its provisions. He might be quite a junior officer. That is why we have tabled an amendment about upgrading the police officer who will be responsible for giving the direction.
The police officer on the spot will not be an expert on the civil law or the law of trespass and is not required to be. Nevertheless, he will have to form a belief and make

a judgment because his reasonable belief triggers off the action. He will have to form a belief about the intentions of a group of people and about questions of fact. He may have to take sides in a dispute about rights to use land, because, under the law, trespass is not an obvious proceeding. There can be arguments about whether an act is trespass and there are civil law provisions to adjudicate on that.
Disputes over rights to occupy or use land may lead to accusations of trespass. That concept has to be applied not in the first instance by the court which becomes involved only after the arrest, but by a police officer on the spot who has not had the opportunity fully to investigate, as provided for in civil courts by the hearing of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the opportunity to produce documents. The police officer on the spot making a snap judgment has to be a civil court on his own, making judgments on the rights and wrongs of a dispute about land. That is exceptionally unfair to the police, but then, the Government's last two major Acts were exceptionally unfair to the police.
The police officer on the spot may quite possibly be a junior person and may have to act on an impromptu interpretation of the civil law. That is not his role. One analysis is that that nebulous concept of reasonable belief may have to be based on judgments of up to 34 different criteria.
I shall give some examples of what I mean. The police officer will have to make a judgment on
entering the land as a trespasser",
and whether a person is a trespasser may be a matter of civil dispute. The police officer will have to make a judgment on the phrase "for any period". This could be a day, a week or a month. Without any definition, neither the police officer nor the occupier is able to know how long the occupier must intend to reside before a direction is given. Another example is "reasonable steps". In this context, "reasonable" is especially unsatisfactory. What other "reasonable steps" can there be to ask someone to leave other than asking him to leave?
A further example is "damage to property". There could be difficulties in deciding whether any damage discovered on the land had been caused by those upon it or by others prior to the occupation. These are all important issues and we are giving a police officer, who has to make these judgments, the right to trigger an arrest that could put someone in prison. A person could be sent to prison if he failed to leave land where he has not caused damage or behaved offensively. That could happen if the officer believed that the person, with others, has taken such action.
There is the question of how the direction is to be given, and the new clause, and therefore the Act, will not specify that. If the direction is to be given verbally, it may not come to the attention of the persons who are involved and there may be dispute about whether anyone knew of the direction. This is despite the fact that those concerned could be imprisoned for ignoring a direction which they did not know about.
Who is a trespasser? These are complex matters, as anyone who practises in the civil courts will know. Civil trespass does not require the knowledge by a trespasser that he or she is trespassing. If a person genuinely believes that he or she has a right to be on land, though mistaken, there will be no defence to any proceedings that ensue as the clause stands. These are serious matters, because we


are creating a criminal offence under which someone may be sent to prison. These disputes may not be very serious when there is a dispute in civil law, but we are dealing with an interpretation of trespass by a police officer, not an expert, who is trained in different ways from experts in other areas, to pursue criminals. As I have said, we are considering a criminal offence that could result in someone being sent to prison.
The action of the person who can be arrested need not be disorderly or violent, despite the fact that this is public order legislation. The clause requires that a subjective judgment is made by a police officer in determining whether words used are threatening, abusive or insulting, and the same goes for behaviour. That is an unfair burden to place on a police officer.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) is responsible for an amendment designed to reduce the number of vehicles which can trigger police action. Whether the hon. Gentleman's number, which I oppose, or the Government's number, which I oppose as well although it is a better one than the hon. Gentleman's becomes the operative number, the concept is an absurdity. Why should 12 vehicles trigger off police action while 11 will not? We are being presented with an arbitrary number of vehicles or caravans, and it is the same if we take four vehicles as opposed to three. There could be more than 12 vehicles involved — for example, there could be 11 on one piece of land and another 11 on an adjoining piece of land. That would not trigger police action and it would be the same— I note that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) nods— with three and three. Once an arbitrary number is chosen, we have an arbitrary piece of legislation.
If police action is triggered by the presence of vehicles, no disorderly conduct is required. Those concerned may be behaving peaceably and may not be indulging in insulting behaviour or committing damage. We have already asked—no answer has been received—what is "any period"? One interpretation that has been offered is an overnight stay, but the Act will not state that. Once again, as so often in the Bill, we see the burden of disproof being placed on the accused person. Instead of the prosecution having to prove guilt, the accused person has to prove his or her innocence under subsection (4).

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way. I am coming to the end of my remarks and I know that a great many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will forgive me if I do not give way to him at this stage.
The Earl of Caithness made a curious statement when he moved the amendment in another place. He said that the Government did not want to harass the gipsies and he gave a bizarre explanation of how the new clause would not harass them. He said:
Setting the threshold for the test in subsection 1 (b) at 12 vehicles means that where gypsies travel in smaller groups than that, they will not he caught unless they commit acts of damage or trespass or harass the occupier." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 October 1986; Vol. 480, c 103.]
That is the protection for gipsies. They had better travel in small groups. As long as they travel with 11 caravans or fewer and behave themselves, they will be all right. The

moment that they travel in groups of 12 or more, they will be in trouble. The new clause threatens the 60 per cent. of gipsies and travelling people who are without caravan sites because of local authorities' failure to carry out their obligations under the Caravans Sites Act 1968.
The new clause is unnecessary, unfair and ill thought out. It could be oppressive and we shall vote against it.

Sir John Farr: Unlike the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I welcome the new clause. I take this opportunity of welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Dispatch Box, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I could say "So far, so good," but I shall not make such a pun at this hour of the evening.
When my hon. Friend the Minister talked about trespassers on a footpath or public road in the countryside, I think that he was in some difficulty. If a caravan, person or vehicle stops on a public road, highway or footpath, that in itself is an offence because an obstruction is caused.
The provision relating to "two or more persons" in subsection (1) is right. It is a carefully chosen figure and I have no doubt that it was arrived at after considerable debate in another place, the reports of which I have read. I welcome subsection (1)(a), which deals with damage to property and threatening, abusive or insulting words. I welcome also paragraph (b), which contains the phrase "twelve or more vehicles". One has to set a figure and, as I have said, the choice of 12 vehicles has been the subject of debate. I have no doubt that if it is found to be too large or too small a figure, it will be possible later to have it varied by some parliamentary means.
I have raised with my hon. Friend the Minister the question of "reasonably practicable" in subsection (2) and I have received a reply. I welcome the emphasis that the new clause gives throughout to police officers having the power to make certain judgments, but the sort of incidents which the clause is designed to curtail, or at least to harness and control, could occur when police officers are not available. The other day my local police officer came to my home. He was certainly not in uniform; he was wearing tennis shoes and white trousers. I should add that he had come along at urgent notice. The phrase " a constable in uniform" is extremely restrictive. Many of the laws that are used to protect property and persons provide for citizens' arrests in certain instances of trespass and criminal damage. Apparently, this is not the intention in this clause, and I am not sure that that is not a weakness.
In subsection (5), I welcome paragraphs (i) and (ii), particularly the addition of scheduled monuments. The House will recall that this clause arose in another place as a result of what happened to Mr. Les Attwell near Yeovil, when he and a number of other farmers were this summer deprived of the use and enjoyment of the land that they occupy. Does my hon. Friend feel that new clause 28 will go some way to protecting people who enjoy or work on the land in a legal and proper manner, but who are under harassment and threat at the moment?
6 pm
I am aware that clause 5 refers especially to harassment, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would interpret how clause 5 marries with new 'clause 28. In the countryside there are many examples of people who work or enjoy their occupation but are harassed, bullied and badgered by many people in the most unfair and undemocratic way.
For example, a group of people were enjoying the field sport of hunting the other day. The master of the Surrey and North Sussex beagles was walking along with the hounds when a van was driven at the hounds and the master was attacked in the face with sticks and he suffered a broken arm. Are animal rights protesters catered for in new clause 28? There are too many such incidents in the countryside. People engaged in employment in, or enjoyment of, various countryside activities are being harassed, badgered and driven to take the law into their own hands in the most desperate way. I hope that my hon. Friend can say that there is some chance of curtailing those who would unlawfully interfere with the rights of those who seek to enjoy perfectly legal and proper recreations in the countryside.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The new clause constitutes a significant amendment to our criminal law. Although it provides for an offence that will rarely be proceeded with through the courts, we must always be reluctant to introduce new crimes into the court calendar. Therefore, it is right that we should be circumspect in our examination of this clause.
It is regrettable that we are having to consider a clause, introducing a new criminal provision, that has been rushed into the Bill without having been through a considered Committee stage. Although I broadly support the philosophy behind the new clause, it is especially regrettable that we were not allowed to wait until the end of the representation period of the Lord Chancellor's review of order 113, mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), before formulating our views on the need for this new clause and the extent of the criminal offence that might be required.
When the right hon. Member for Gorton was speaking, one had the impression — I think that many in the Labour party still believe this—that all farmers have pots of money and can afford to go off to their solicitors and pay the costs of proceedings brought in the civil courts. The impression is that they can somehow wave a magic wand and obtain a hearing in the civil court quickly, and then wave the same magic wand, perhaps slightly extended, and employ the services of the bailiffs to shoo trespassers of their land.

Mr. Clive Soley: rose—

Mr. Carlile: Before I give way, I have a further point to make.
In my constituency and throughout rural Wales, the reality of farming is that many farmers who have experienced serious trespass and damage to their land have a net income of less than £3,000 a year. The real income of the average farmer in Wales is 28 per cent. of what it was 10 years ago. A further reality is that in my constituency—I know because they have told me—many farmers have to rely for the subsistence of their families on family income supplement, which adds a little bit to their meagre income as farmers. There are exceptions. There are some highly successful entrepreneurial farmers in my constituency and throughout Wales, but, at the same time, the income of the majority of farmers is well below the national wage.

Mr. Soley: I cannot allow the hon. and learned Member to take advantage of the temporary absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr.

Kaufman) to make such an unreasonable attack on him. Nothing in my right hon. Friend's comments suggested that we are anything but concerned about low-income farmers. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes, I shall send him a copy of our policy document which shows that. The point at issue is whether this is an appropriate way to deal with that problem. Given what my right hon. Friend said about the Lord Chancellor's examination of the civil law, the hon. and learned Gentleman should take that into account before making such an absurd suggestion.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's offer, but the right hon. Member for Gorton said that the civil law is good enough to deal with such situations. That assumes that the average farmer, including the average small farmer in my consituency with a hill farm of between 50 and 150 acres, can afford the £80 that a reasonable solicitor might ask for bringing the proceedings before the county court. I am afraid that the majority of farmers in my constituency cannot afford to put their hands in their pockets and pull out even the £80 needed for the most basic of applications to the county court.
Some may answer that by saying, "What about legal aid?" Farmers, like anyone else, can have legal aid, but if one asks a practising solicitor how easy it is to obtain an emergency legal aid certificate to deal with such a situation, the answer is that it is much harder to get than a hearing before a court. I am afraid that it does not wash to say that civil remedies are adequate.

Mr. Soley: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that we should use the criminal law or that there should he a review of the civil law so that it is available to low-income farmers?

Mr. Carlile: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman as directly as he would expect. Just as, early in the debate, without a murmur from either me or the Labour party, we agreed to an amendment that introduced a new criminal offence with a maximum of 10 years in prison, so we are now perceiving another place in which there is justification for introducing a new criminal offence, albeit one with a much lower level of penalty.
This is an important amendment, though extremely circumscribed and providing for penalties which are not great in proportion to other criminal offences. Before I gave way twice to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I said that farmers and those who represent and understand their needs understand the need for the police to be able to eject residential trespassers from land. The more one considers the problem and ponders the extent to which police powers are required, the more it becomes clear that, reluctantly, we must agree to a criminal offence which includes that small maximum sentence of imprisonment and the power of a court to impose a fine.
Earlier, I rather unfairly raised with the Minister an issue about footpaths. I apologise to him for raising the issue in that way. His answer earned at least alpha minus and was a valiant attempt to deal with my point, but he suggested that what I said was preposterous and I will not have that. Therefore, I shall have another go at him and this time he will have more time to reflect upon what I consider to be a serious problem which merits a more serious answer.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: When I said "preposterous", I was talking about the idea that a convoy could remain four square on a footpath.

Mr. Carlile: That is just the point I was about to deal with. Unfortunately, it is not half as preposterous as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Throughout the country and in my constituency there are rights of way through Forestry Commission land, which the public can traverse in groups, on horseback, which are wide enough to accommodate two articulated lorries loaded with logs travelling in opposite directions. These are wide rights of way upon which a convoy could camp. One can readily envisage a position, especially where tents are used, in which those who are camped upon land have come there lawfully because they have a right to do so, and have camped mainly upon what is classed as a highway.
Therefore, the absurd position could arise in which those who camp upon a field adjoining, for example, a Forestry Commission track could be rendered liable to the new criminal offence, but those who camp upon the track would not he liable to the new offence.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I merely wish to clarify the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals. Is he proposing that the meaning of "land" should be extended to include highways?

Mr. Carlile: Farmers must be protected. There is no logical distinction to be drawn between that part of a farmer's land which happens to be a field and that part which happens to be a track over which he drives his tractor; nor between that part of Forestry Commission land which is afforested and that part upon which the log lorries are driven; nor between that part of a national park which is merely farmed land, as for example in Snowdonia, where very large tracts, with the co-operation of farmers, have been opened to the public.

Mr. Hind: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a way round this problem? My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has told us what it is. The definitions of "highway" in section 5 of the Highway Act 1835, as subsequently amended by sections 328 and 329 of the Highways Act 1980, cover bridges, roads, carriageways, cartways, horseways, bridleways, footways, causeways, churchways, pavements and footpaths. But if a convoy partially or totally obstructs any of those sorts of highway, of which there are many, it commits an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act, which entitles the police to remove it from that spot. In effect, a police officer in situ dealing with such a problem on a highway would be in exactly the same position as he would be in dealing with land adjacent to the highway under the new clause that we are discussing.

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is full of appealing ways, but I wonder whether the average farmer attending the executive meeting of the local branch of the National Farmers Union or the Farmers Union of Wales will find that distinction easy to understand. The legislation is intended to solve problems for farmers in a way that they will understand.
However, another point worries me. I am not seeking to put before the Minister obscure obstacles which are best left to law examination papers. It worries me much more that a farmer who has substantial rights of way across his

land may not realise that such part of his land as is a right of way is classified as a highway. Therefore, he may ask the police to exercise their powers under the Public Order Act. They may do that, and the farmer and the police may soon find themselves in a civil court accused of wrongful arrest and, ultimately, false imprisonment. This matter needs further consideration.
I share the misgivings which have been expressed about the meaning of the words "reasonable steps" in subsection (1) of the new clause. That point is reinforced when one sets the phrase
reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier of the land,"—
for that is the standard which the landowner must satisfy — against the standard which the police officer must satisfy. He need not take "reasonable steps" to ask trespassers to leave. He can direct—for the word used in relation to the police officer is "direct" — persons to leave the land. An unhelpful distinction is drawn in amendment No. 28 between the quality of the action required of the landowner and that required of the police officer. That distinction has no logical basis.
The right hon. Member for Gorton suggested that there is no need for a new criminal offence to be created because, where damage is committed, a police officer can arrest someone for the damage. Where there is a breach of the peace and the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, a police officer has power to arrest. But those who take that view— I have received many briefings advocating that view—have failed to observe an essential distinction between the general powers of the police in relation to specific criminal offences and the helpful power contained in subsection (1).
If a police officer sees a crowd of people encamped upon land and an item has been damaged — a constituent of mine suffered damage to a cattle trough in a field on 18 occasions during a fortnight— he cannot march on to the land and arrest the first person he sees for damaging the trough. He must have reasonable grounds for believing that that person has damaged the trough. If he comes along, as is inevitably the case, after the trough has been damaged, he has a problem on his hands, because he cannot do anything about it. If there has been a breach of the peace and a farmer rings up and says, "I have been abused, threatened and insulted by a crowd of people on my land, late at night," but he has no idea which individuals used the insulting words or threatening behaviour, the police are left powerless.
The power arises under subsection (1), where any of the persons who are encamped on the land
has caused damage to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier.
Therefore we are providing something that does not exist, in terms of powers of the police, under the existing law. In my view, we are providing something that anybody—perhaps I can return an earlier jibe by the Minister— who, like myself, has considerable knowledge and experience of the countryside and who lives in the middle of the countryside, knows is a reasonable power.
Although I have grave misgivings about the way in which this new law is being introduced and although, in my view, it would have been far better to leave it out of this Bill and to include it in what I believe is to be a Criminal Justice Bill in the new Session of Parliament, starting very shortly, nevertheless, having regard to the


balance of interests and considerations, the principle of this clause must be supported. I shall support it later tonight. However, I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that the Government are conscious of the rush that there has been to introduce the clause and that they will be prepared to consider even significant changes if it is found that the clause causes difficulties in the coming months.

Mr. Humfrey Matins: I welcome the clause and it will be welcomed by large numbers of people, including farmers whose powers until now have been limited when their land has been invaded. Either they have had to go to law for a civil remedy—which is very expensive and very slow; the county court takes several days to hear a case and it is not inconceivable that legal bills running well into four figures will be incurred— or they have to use the remedy of self-help. In law a farmer is entitled to use reasonable force to remove trespassers from his land. He cannot use reasonable force to remove trespassers from his house, but he can use it to remove them from his land. However, that is thought to be an unwise step to take, because of the consequences that can flow from using reasonable force. Farmers tend to get a little excited.
I believe that it is a good new clause, but I should like to make one or two points about it. The first relates to causing damage to property. We are not dealing with criminal damage. The new clause provides that any form of damage, which includes accidental damage, must fit within the section. However, damage to property is mentioned in the clause. Property that is defined in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 does not, apparently, include the foliage of a plant that is growing wild on any land.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the following scenario and let me know whether he thinks that it fits within the section? A group of vehicles—perhaps seven in number—comes on to a farmer's land. In so doing, those vehicles are trespassing. No intentional damage is caused. The occupants of the vehicles do not abuse or threaten the occupier of the land or his family. However, the movement of those vehicles causes damage to certain crops. In the case that I have imagined, there are seven vehicles. Therefore they do not come within subsection I (b), which refers to 12 or more vehicles. Therefore, the farmer is left with the remedy in paragraph (a): he has to establish damage to property on his land.
If the vehicles or individuals accidentally cause damage to a crop that the farmer is growing—corn or maize—am I right in saying that that constitutes property, whereas if they cause damage to a grass crop it would not constitute damage to property? What classes of goods are covered by the phrase "growing wild on any land"? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with that question.
That question reminds me of what happens under the law relating to motoring. If one is involved in a road traffic accident, one is under a duty to stop and exchange names and addresses. Then one asks oneself, what is an accident? I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that an accident is an untoward event involving damage to people or property.
The courts have held that it is an accident when damage is caused even to a tree. In motoring law, therefore, the tree falls within the definition of property, when it comes to damage, for the purposes of the section that requires one

to stop and exchange names and addresses. Under this clause one can envisage the occupants of a group of seven vehicles chopping down a tree with which to light a fire. If a tree is chopped down and used to light a fire, does it constitute a plant that is growing wild on the land, thus taking it outside the scope of "property", or is the tree "property"?
The definition of "property" could give rise to difficulty. When vehicles go on to land they will inevitably cause some damage to some property. Therefore, one has to ask to what extent the definition of "property" includes crops.
Furthermore, I do not understand why 12 vehicles must be involved. I have envisaged a case in which seven vehicles might be involved. The land of a client of mine was invaded by seven or eight vehicles, which caused great problems for my client. He is a farmer and he could not afford to go to law, despite my offer to handle the case for a few sacks of logs, not for a fee.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Plus VAT.

Mr. Matins: Yes, plus VAT.
He could not afford it, and time was against us. Those seven vehicles went on to his land. No insults were offered to his family and the only damage caused was the damage to some of his crops by the vehicles as they went through his fields. I should like to know whether an offence was committed in that case. I rather hope that it was.
Finally, one of the remedies that was available to my farmer friend was the ability to use reasonable force to throw out those people, but the police thought that that would be unwise. There was some sense in that view. However, my friend's great frustration was that the law discouraged him from using reasonable force to eject those people from his land and, due to a very old statute, the law forbids him to use reasonable force to throw people out of his home. There are many people who think that the law relating to squatting in properties should be looked at afresh.
I think that my farmer friend will greatly appreciate the thrust of this new clause. It will provide protection for large numbers of people who in the past have felt defenceless.

Mr. Chris Smith: I begin by seizing this opportunity, like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, to congratulate the new Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), on his apppointment. In Committee we learned to respect and view with considerable affection the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), the former Minister of State, Home Office, who conducted the Bill's passage with great reasonableness and earned the respect of all hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee and the House. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Grantham will prove an ample substitute.
I take issue with the Under-Secretary of State's claim that the new clause's provisions will apply in strictly limited circumstances. It is precisely because I believe that those circumstances are not strictly limited that I have grave misgivings about it. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Matins) pinpointed the problem of accidental damage and of what
has caused damage to property
means. In doing that, he highlighted just one of the many difficulties. There are others. The persons involved must


have entered the land as trespassers, yet "trespassers" are not defined. Who decides whether people are entering land as trespassers? Is it to be assumed that they are trespassers simply because they do not have the express permission of the owner?

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman may have been out of the Chamber when this point was addressed. The new clause states that the senior police officer must reasonably believe that the people have entered the land as trespassers. Consequently, the hon. Gentleman must accept that the defence's first action in court would be to test the police officer's action on that very point. That is where the issue of trespass would first arise.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has run ahead of me, because I was about to come to that point. To a certain extent, the whole thing hinges on it.
Someone judging whether the senior police officer "reasonably believes" that a group of two or more persons are trespassers will be unable to receive any guidance from the new clause or the Bill. The new clause states that the officer must reasonably believe that the trespassers are there with the
common purpose of residing there for any period".
But my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has already asked what "any period" means. Is it an hour, a day, or what?
There is also the question whether
any of those persons has caused damage to property".
If the police officer reasonably believes that a wall has been broken by those supposedly trespassing, but they protest their innocence and say that the wall was broken when they came onto the land, it is possible that neither their contention nor the police officer's belief can be proved. Thus, there is enormous scope for difficulty and argument. Many of the provisions in subsection (1) of the new clause are open to very wide interpretation.
Let us imagine that a family of three decide to camp overnight on privately owned land without first obtaining permission. Nothing could less resemble a hippie convoy. Let us then imagine that the owner tells them fairly aggressively to move off and leave his land, and that they refuse, saying that they are out for the weekend and want to camp. They may argue back in a somewhat ripe fashion. But if they do so, it may be said that they have used
threatening, abusive or insulting words".
At that point, all the mechanisms in the new clause will have been triggered. A family of three, whose only apparent crime is to have shouted back at someone who aggressively demanded that they should leave his land, will be subject to a direction from a police officer and, on refusal, to a criminal prosecution. That may well happen and those people would then be caught by the new clause's provisions. The Government have introduced this new clause in order to catch a different sort of offence, but that is one consequence of it. It worries me that such people will be considered criminals if the legislation reaches the statute book.
But worse than the potential scope of the legislation, and worse than the ambiguity of several of the provisions in subsection (1), is the role of the police officer and his reasonable belief. The new clause places a great onus on the police officer. In a subsequent court case, the test will

be whether the police officer's belief was reasonable. I am not sure that the police will welcome being placed in that position.
Moreover, subsection (2) states:
If a person knowing that such a direction has been given which applies to him
fails to leave the land or subsequently returns, he commits an offence. Subsection (2) does not contain any qualifications about whether the direction was valid. If the person contests that direction or wishes to do so, or leaves and subsequently decides that it was invalid and returns, he has precious little protection. I hope that the Minister can clarify that point. Is it to be assumed that that direction must be valid in order for the mechanism to be triggered? If not, it is a matter of concern, because an invalid direction could be given, and the person concerned would have to comply with it.
I am worried about the new clause's scope and about the ambiguity of several of its provisions. I am also worried that the police officer's belief should be the test on which the whole thing hinges. Moreover, I am concerned that the Government are introducing a new power of criminal trespass. They will turn the police into the bailiffs of privately owned land. Traditionally, we have never supported that in this country, and I cannot support it now.

Mr. Hawksley: I do not particularly want to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about whether trespass will become a criminal offence. In Committee, I argued that such a move would not be harmful and might almost be necessary. My amendments were not then accepted.
I accept that this amendment is different. It is not a case of making trespass a criminal offence. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) wondered where the amendment had come from and suggested that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had been watching television. I do not mind where it came from, because I wholeheartedly welcome it, even at this late hour.
It is unfortunate that we did not have such an amendment before us either in Committee or on Report. It would have given us an opportunity to deal with some of these details. It is also a pity that it took a case such as that of Mr. Attwell to get the Home Office to respond. I am glad that the Home Office has responded. We warned the then Minister, both in Committee and on Report, that something would have to be done. In Telford, in my constituency, I have had experience of problems created by peace convoys. My concern is not that this amendment does not make trespass a criminal offence but that there may be some gaps in the law if the House accepts the amendment.
Subsection 1(a) of the new clause refers to persons who have used
insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his".
Who would that be in the case of publicly owned land? In Telford, the Telford development corporation, The Wrekin district council and the National Coal Board, which were owners, had to take action against a peace convoy. To which group are the insulting words directed in those cases? I wrote to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, asking whether he would consider accepting the idea that neighbours, in addition to the occupier, might suffer from insulting words. I am


concerned that we may have left a loophole by insisting that it is the occupier of the land and not the neighbours who suffer the insulting words or threats against them.
Paragraph (b) specifies that
those persons have between them brought twelve or more vehicles on to the land".
The Opposition have asked why 12 vehicles were stipulated. My amendment stating four vehicles can be considered questionable on the same grounds. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State must respond by saying why the figure of 12 was chosen. Twelve is too many; four would be better. What will happen? With the very good legal advice that the peace convoys seem to take around with them, we will soon find that they will have 12 or 13 vans. They will just split up into two groups. They may be only 100 yards apart but on different owners' land, yet under this new clause they will be able to say, "It does not apply to us."
I hope that the Minister will tackle the question of numbers and the reason for choosing 12. My amendment is to probe his arguments to find what the position will be if peace convoys divide into smaller units.
The House should accept the amendment. It will give comfort to many people not only in rural areas, such as Montgomeryshire, of which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke, but in places such as Telford and other new towns where there is a lot of spare land and where peace convoys have a habit of drifting for the winter. I welcome the amendment and congratulate the Government on introducing it.

Mr. Richard Livsey: This amendment should be supported because it specifically refers to those who trespass on land for the express purpose of residing on it. Trespassers have caused an immense problem in the area of Wales that I represent. The provision also refers to 12 or more vehicles being brought on to land. There have been many examples of more than 12 vehicles going on to land and causing damage and distress, especially to farmers.
I am pleased that the amendment refers to common land. There is an immense amount of common land in Wales. Vehicles entering land have been a problem for us. I refer to the problems which have occurred on Hay bluff, for example, in my constituency over at least 10 years. A number of people who resided on Hay bluff brought with them dogs that killed sheep. They used abusive language—indeed, unparliamentary language—and threatened to burn down hay barns if farmers did not accede to their demands. Such a demand was made to a farmer when these people were cutting his fences. I remind the House that the cutting of fences is a serious matter for livestock farmers. It deprives them of the use of their land because their stock are no longer contained in the field.
6.45 pm
The exclusion of such things as monuments is a weakness in the Bill. Many areas have monuments that the public like to visit. I believe that I am right in saying that such areas are excluded from the Bill.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Included within the definition of land are schedules of monuments within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

Mr. Livsey: I stand corrected.
The new clause will provide the police with the power to ensure protection against mass invasion. This is a

problem area. The measure will not interfere with normal ramblers, bird watchers, or even courting couples. It certainly will not criminalise simple trespass; it will only criminalise mass invasion — an important distinction. One should realise that mass invasions intimidate the rural public in much the same way as the urban public is intimidated if police over-react and send too many officers to solve a problem. It is a matter of balance and we have to get it right. There is a happy medium of tolerance, and this clause provides it.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned the right of individuals to pursue certain life styles. I agree with him; it should be a fundamental right. But a difficulty arises when people pursue their life styles en masse. I shall give an analogy, having been a farm manager for part of my career. We always acceded to travellers' requests to stay the night on the farm. Indeed, we used to allow them to go into farm buildings. We welcomed them and provided them with a cup of tea, a bun, sandwiches, or whatever. They came every spring and autumn on their way around the British Isles. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Chris Smith) mentioned campers going on to private land and the possibility of a dispute. In my experience and in that of many other people engaged in farm management, any campers who approached a farmer and asked to erect their tents and stay the night on the land were generally made welcome. They are turfed off in exceptional circumstances, and I regard that as an intolerant attitude.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although many farmers would do exactly as he did and provide facilities for overnight campers, many farmers find it much more difficult to deal with gipsies? A particularly difficult problem in Wales is that, although some local authorities have provided sites for gipsies—such as my district council in Montgomeryshire—many have failed to do so, and the Welsh Office has been absurdly reluctant to designate those sites that have been provided.

Mr. Livsey: I agree. The Bill's great weakness is that provision has not been made for sites for travellers. We are considering some of the essentials needed for protection, but the lack of provision of sites for travelling people is a serious omission.
On the whole, the new clause provides a happy medium, achieving a balance between the rightful public interests and the interests of those who wish to protect their freedom as landowners. On the whole, the Bill strikes the right balance.

Mr. David Ashby: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) to the Government Front Bench and to the firing line of the Bill in its late stages. I realise that at the eleventh hour a new offence has suddenly been thrust on us.
I recall an Adjournment debate in 1983, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), in which I joined. My hon. Friend and I were appalled by the actions of a number of people who were travelling about the country in dilapidated vehicles, camping on property and damaging it. Between 1983 and 1986 the problem worsened. We saw with dismay what happened to farmer Attwell. There was a universal call for something to be done because it was clear that criminal offences were being


committed. I wonder whether the creation of this trespassing offence will alter the position of people like farmer Attwell.
I understand that a large convoy caused great disruption in the west country. The police issued directions, the effect of which was to force people in the convoy to drive off the road, and they then went on to farmer Attwell's land. Criminal damage was done, yet no arrests were made and no one was brought before the courts. It appears that the wish of the police force was simply to move the people on, to keep them moving and to disperse them. I cannot envisage people involved in similar situations in the future being charged under the new clause. I foresee similar events occurring. The police will try to move people on and disperse them. I wonder whether the new clause will alleviate the problem.
I have been deeply concerned about the position of people travelling round the country and disrupting the lives of many others who are intent on carrying on normal life. It is right and proper that the Government should act, but I wonder why we have acted in this way. I cannot help but feel that the legislation is a blunderbuss where the accuracy of a rifle is needed. It has been introduced in a great hurry. As we all know, the worst legislation is always initiated when it is a reaction to certain events. This totally new legislation is a reaction to what happened in the summer in the west country. I accept that the police will face a great problem because they have never liked acting in the quasi-civil area of trespass. This new clause means that they will have to do so.
This is a ponderous, heavy-handed new clause. It contains rather unhelpful provisions, such as that dealing with "twelve or more vehicles" and that covering persons who have
caused damage to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour".
Where in the Home Office is there the vision and understanding of what is required? We are the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not just of England. One need only go north, beyond the border, to see the good legislation which has been in place for some years and been seen to work. Has the Home Office ever looked at the Scottish law of criminal encampment? These ponderous references to "twelve or more vehicles", "threatening" behaviour, and so on, are the basis for the worst sort of legislation. There is the simple legislation of criminal encampment. The word "encampment" is redolent of all the problems with which we are trying to deal— large convoys causing mayhem and damage about the countryside and being harmful to many people.
I welcome the idea behind the legislation and recognise that something must be done, but we must be careful and realise that we do not want to harm those people who would normally be dealt with under the civil law. For years we have seen the signs, "Trespassers will be prosecuted" and laughed at them, realising that we could carry on once we paid our shilling—the total damages. The civil law could be applied if there were a serious trespass, but, by and large, it has been ignored.
I feel sure that in the Scottish law of criminal encampment we will find what this country requires. I shall not vote against the new clause because it is along the lines that I have outlined, but I shall not give it much of a life. I foresee that it will be unworkable, that it will be ignored

and that eventually it will fall into disrepute or be repealed because it is found to be full of loopholes and hopeless. I welcome the measure because it will give lawyers much work, not in the magistrates courts but in the Court of Appeal where it will be interpreted. I must declare an interest. I foresee a marvellous amount of work for lawyers arising from it, and for that reason I welcome it.
I urge the Home Office to look beyond our borders to Scotland and the better legislation which has worked extremely well and been tried and tested. Let us look next Session at the criminal justice legislation, repeal this measure and put in its place something better from Scotland.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome the new clause and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the new Under-Secretary of State, for his patient and thoughtful response in the past few weeks to the difficult problem of the damage and disruption caused by mass trespass.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asserted that past Conservative Ministers expressed the view that the present law was adequate to cope with this problem without the need for additional legislation. If the right hon. Gentleman had been more attentive on Report, he would have hard my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) draw attention to the acknowledged deficiencies in the existing law of trespass. Indeed, my hon. Friend concluded his remarks on clause 14 with the sentence:
I trust that it is not a state of law which we can allow to remain for much longer."—[Official Report, 30 April 1986; Vol. 96. c. 1054.]
The former Minister clearly had it in mind to bring forward an additional clause. I welcome the fact that he has fulfilled that promise.
7 pm
I must draw attention to the fact that alliance Members have been very slow to wake up to this issue. It is, of course, welcome that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) supports the new clause. However, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) — the alliance spokesman in Committee—took no interest in this in Committee. Indeed, he not only opposed any amendment or extension to the Bill to deal with the problem of mass trespass, but expressed outright opposition to clause 14 which, at that time, was the only part of the Bill that might have been of some use to those affected. Although the alliance has climbed on to the bandwagon late, it is nevertheless welcome on board.
What concentrated the minds of alliance Members was the sight this summer of small farmers having to spend in excess of £1,000 each in unsuccessful attempts to protect their properties and livelihoods from being wrecked. Obviously, the most prominent case was that of Mr. Les Attwell, who comes from my county of Somerset. He is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) who has played a considerable part in achieving a satisfactory conclusion to that issue.
It must be stated repeatedly that the new clause is not creating a new offence of trespass; it is creating a new power to evict trespassers in certain circumstances. The criminal law will not come into effect until a chain of events has taken place. It will therefore not ensnare anyone but the most determined trespasser.
For a start, there has to be an original act of trespass. Secondly, there must be an intention to reside on the land in question. I am not altogether happy with the word "reside" because it can imply that there is an intention to stay for sonic considerable time. Thirdly, for a criminal act to be committed, the occupier has to ask the alleged trespasser to leave. Having fulfilled those three conditions, there has to be a threat of damage, disruption or harassment to the occupier or his family, or there must be more than 12 vehicles involved. Following that, a senior police officer has to ask the trespasser to leave the land in question and, lastly the trespasser has to refuse to leave the land. Only when those six conditions have been fulfilled will a criminal act have been committed. I do not think that that constitutes a ferocious extension of the criminal law.
I have a number of comparatively minor misgivings, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could address them when he replies. Subsection 4(b) gives it as a defence for an alleged trespasser to show reasonable excuse for failing to leave the land in question. What does my hon. Friend understand "reasonable excuse" to mean? He may say that it is up to the courts to decide that. Is it, for instance, "reasonable excuse" for a trespasser to say that his vehicle has broken down or become unroad-worthy? That is a very frequent excuse at present. It is common for those coming on to land to abandon or dump their vehicles and then claim that they cannot leave for that reason.
Secondly, I would like the Minister to say what is encompassed by his definition of "land" in the new clause. Is it, for instance, two adjacent fields? What would happen if trespassers were to withdraw from a field on one side of the road and immediately encamp in another field on the other side of the road? Is it land defined as belonging to one person or within the encompass of one farm? Is it land within one parish or area? These are important considerations. If there are loopholes, we can be quite certain that they will be discovered, because many of the potential trespassers—members of future peace convoys—have access to good legal advice, like anyone else, and they can tailor their activities accordingly.
Thirdly, I want to refer to the limit of 12 vehicles. It is all right if the 12 vehicles concerned are Mini Metros, but it is not all right if those vehicles are buses. There have been frequent occasions in my constituency when members of peace convoys—hippies, itinerants, or whatever they are called — came on to land and abandoned their vehicles, in which they then lived. They were not cars; they were old school buses and the like. One was a double-decker bus. Eleven double-decker buses, which would escape the clause, can constitute quite a party. In London we are used to seeing columns or convoys of double-decker buses. However, I hope that the new clause will not encourage columns of double-decker buses to constitute future peace convoys in Somerset.
Thes are comparatively minor points. The new clause is certainly welcomed by me and most of the people whom I represent. I hope very much that these will remain as reserve powers for use by the police on rare occasions. There are many legitimate and legal ways whereby people can enjoy camping and caravanning in the west country. The Bill, with the new clause, will be a means of serving notice on the minority of people who come to my part of the country and cause damage or disruption and with whom the law at present is inadequate to cope.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: We can recognise that the Home Office has been in some difficulties over the new clause. Indeed, I suspect that it has been very uncertain about the exact drafting that it wanted, because its views have changed so radically from the first part of the year.
I have a letter from the Home Office dated 23 April 1986 from which I would like to quote. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the question of the trespass on Greenham Common in my constituency. I suggested that perhaps further powers were needed to correct that trespass. In his reply, the Home Secretary said:
The practical difficulties of drafting an offence which applies to land would he considerable, involving for example defining the nature of the land to be covered by the offence, and ensuring that the offence does not have effect beyond those justified by the mischief it is trying to prevent.
Since he wrote that letter in April, the Government and the Home Office have been spurred into action not by the trespass on Greenham Common but by the curious creation called the peace convoy of hippies which existed in an around Stonehenge and throughout the west country and which finally came to rest in the New Forest. For some reason that convoy caught the nation's and the Government's eye more effectively than the peace women. As a result of that hippie convoy we have this new clause.
Although I shall support the Government, I do not think that the new clause goes far enough. I shall test this clause against the narrow constituency example of what we have had to endure at Greenham Common from a trespass. I shall also point out to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that his view that the civil law is adequate is far from the truth. Because of the statements by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary at the time of the hippie convoy that the law of trespass would be looked at again and that they would bring forward new proposals when the Bill went to the House of Lords if they thought they could produce sufficient and adequate drafting, I took it upon myself to write to the Home Secretary. I suggested that perhaps what was required was an order of trespass which would enable the police to remove people who were in residence on common land unlawfully. As I have already said, I do not believe that the civil law is adequate or has been proved to be adequate to deal with this matter.
If for a moment I strike a frivolous note to make my point, I do so because I wish to quote from a satirical article that sums up what my constituency, especially around Greenham Common, has had to endure for five years. The article comes from Private Eye and it is entitled "This Romantic England". It reads:
The English countryside knows no more colourful sight than the groups of anorak-bedecked peace-women who traditionally cluster around the Greenham Common airbase in Berkshire. With their matted hair and muddy Wellingtons, these exotic creatures fill the air with their shrill cries of .No cruise, no cruise' and 'We hate men'.
And then, once a week, a strange ritual is enacted whose origins are lost in the mists of time.
The burghers of Newbury send 'officials' to 'expel' the women from their traditional roosting ground.
Amid much squeaking the burly bailiffs 'move in' to dismantle the primitive shelters in which the women and their offspring have made their squalid nests.
All this is traditionally watched by a large group of local residents, who emerge from their large detached residences behind the rhododendrons and say things like 'About bloody time', 'They use our garden as a public toilet' and 'It's the least the council can do considering the rates we pay'.


A few minutes later, as the last cheers die away and the Council officials' Cortinas disappear down the leafy lane, the women re-emerge from the trees and begin the process of rebuilding their quaint shelters, from the traditional materials of PVC sheeting, chemical fertiliser bags and old copies of the Sunday Telegraph.
Although satirical, that is a remarkably accurate summing up of what we have had to endure during the past five years and what, to some extent, still exists, although at a much lower level.
I look at amendment No. 28 and ask myself how it will meet the problem of people who persist in a trespass knowing that they are breaking byelaws controlling the common land. I find myself wondering whether the amendment affects common land. It says in the clause that action can be taken only against those whose original entry on the land could constitute a trespass. By its very definition, that cannot mean common land, because there is no trespass in walking or being on common land. Therefore, the first and necessary condition for proving trespass does not seem to exist in terms of the Greenham women and those like them who choose to take up residence on common land.
7.15 pm
We then come to the question of residence, as opposed to simply being on common land. My constituents have never objected to the one-day demonstrations around Greenham by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. They recognise, as I do, that to be able to protest is one of the essential freedoms that a parliamentary democracy enjoys. They have objected to residence on the common land which is taken up by those women with their so-called claim to be doing something to maintain world peace.
The peace women do not go in for one-day demonstrations. They have been with us in larger or smaller numbers since 1981. They have cost an additional £4 million in policing and have been guilty of more than 1,000 offences, including about 300 offences of criminal damage. Throughout, they have been guilty of illegal possession of common land. When I look at what "land" is said to mean in this new clause, there is no reference to it being common land, although there is reference to the "occupier".
It may be that I am wrong to believe that this clause relates entirely to private land where there is clearly an owner and an occupier. However, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clear up that point. I for one would like to believe that common land, which is in a sense the possession of all the people of this country, is just as precious to us as anything owned by a private individual and that those who seek to break the byelaws which govern the conduct of all of us so that we may enjoy common land are as much trespassers as those who choose to put their vehicles or themselves on private land.
In the amendment there is the requirement of 12 or more vehicles to prove the trespass. There is also the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) which states that that number should be reduced to four. I find it difficult to understand why any number should be selected. Anybody who has been to Greenham will know that one vehicle can create a considerable nuisance and make my constituents write

to me asking what I am doing to get the women off the common or when the Government Departments which own bits of that land will do something to shift them.
I have also noticed that the word "vehicles" covers both motor vehicles and caravans. I hope that those in the Home Office who drafted this clause are aware that the Greenham women, although they do have vehicles, generally live in what are called benders. Benders are structures made of wood and PVC sheeting. Therefore, this clause could not touch their structures at all. There may be a good reason for that; it may be impossible to define what a bender is. However, if somebody had chosen to come to Greenham they might have learnt some useful and practical lessons as to exactly how people live who choose to trespass on land. They do not necessarily require motor vehicles.
I have to say that, although I will support this clause, I cannot do so wholeheartedly unless my hon. Friend can tell me that my misgivings about it not applying to common land are out of place. I want him to think again about the number of vehicles necessary to prove an offence and take into account the fact that those who trespass in this way do not necessarily live in motor vehicles or caravans but can live in other structures which can cause just as much inconvenience and unhappiness to those who have to suffer the trespass as anything else he may have thought of.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: There can be no doubt that some action is required. Following the incident at Cannock Chase, paragraph 56 of the police report stated:
The state of the site, an acknowledged beauty spot, was appalling. It was littered with debris of all kinds, there was human excreta all about the area, many trees had been broken down or otherwise damaged and there was evidence (from cigarette ends, syringes, etc.) of the use of drugs. The County Council—
I remind the House that it was a Labour county council—
were compelled to declare the area a health hazard … and it was closed off to the public for six weeks while the debris was cleared away and the excreta decomposed by natural processes.
Any Government who failed to take action to prevent that type of affront would be derelict in their duty. For that reason, I must immediately disagree with the contention of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the present law is sufficient. Clearly, it is not.
The House must determine whether the remedy of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is the right one. Many hon. Members who served on the Committee will agree that it is wrong to criminalise trespass. The police have certainly resisted that. We wrestled with this matter in Committee and at a meeting at Scotland Yard attended by many senior police officers, who wanted action, but who did not wish to criminalise trespass and turn the police into the bailiffs of private landowners.
It is important for the House to know what some senior police officers would prefer. They do not want a power to enter land and throw off trespassers and damagers. They want some pre-emptive power to prevent trespassers from entering the land in the first place. Their attitude is coloured by their knowledge that the police will meet with resistance if they enter land where people have already established themselves and where frequently those people


may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs and will certainly be in a state of high excitement. Many police officers are injured when they must undertake that duty.
The Government's approach is, not to provide a power for the police or others to pre-empt the occupation of land by those who may damage it, but to provide a power whereby, once the trespass has taken place and the encampment has been set up, the police may enter the land and, if the conditions of the amendment are met, require the people to leave.
It is worth quoting the views of the chief constable of Staffordshire who, after the Cannock incident, said:
What is really needed is some statutory power for the Police to take action of a preventive nature to stop these people entering onto land unlawfully. Quite frankly, once they have entered onto land the harm has been done because it is then necessary to go through the protracted civil process to evict them.
While I shall support the Government, I should have preferred it if they had given the police the power to deal with the mischief before it happens rather than after it has happened.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: As my hon. Friend represents the Police Federation, can he say whether it is within the powers of the police force as the law stands to enforce the Road Traffic Acts as regards the roadworthiness of vehicles? In that way the police could largely take pre-emptive action. Is it not the case that often these vehicles are plainly in contravention of those Acts as they are flagrantly unlicensed, uninsured or unroadworthy?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Yes, indeed, and from time to time the police take action under the Acts. But they are always in a dilemma. If they take action on the highways to deal with convoys under the Road Traffic Acts or the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 they will frequently inconvenience gravely large numbers of other motorists who are going about their business by creating large traffic jams. Ironically, sometimes the police must allow a hippie convoy to proceed in order not to create an even worse traffic problem by holding it up at a particular point. Usually the police must balance their actions with common sense.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench, will respond to my general point in his reply. I now wish to make two further points.
I agree with hon. Members who have said that the definition of 12 vehicles is unfortunate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), I would have preferred no specific number. It should be the number of vehicles sufficient to create nuisance or damage. Once the number is defined, absurd situations arise. For example, the police would be helpless if a group of people took 11 vehicles onto public or private land, if those 11 vehicles did not cause damage, for example if they remained on the road, and if the people driving those vehicles did not use threatening or abusive language. Under the new clause, the police cannot act where 11 vehicles are involved. It would be far better, not to amend the number to four or to keep the number 12, but simply to say that if vehicles are in a number which causes damage, the police may act.
My final point is precise, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will understand that the police are a

precise group of people. I wish to draw his attention to the text of the amendment. Lords amendment No. 28(1) refers to "the senior police officer" who must reasonably believe
that two or more persons have entered land as trespassers".
He triggers the action. He is not a senior police officer, but the senior police officer present. He may be a constable or a sergeant. But under subsection (3), only a constable in uniform may make an arrest.
On some occasions a senior detective officer, such as an inspector or a superintendent, returning home from duty or passing by in the course of work for the CID or Special Branch, may come across a group of people who are committing an offence. It would be his absolute duty as a police officer on duty to take action under this Lords amendment. What is he to do? Is he to say that he cannot effect an arrest until he returns to the police station and puts on his uniform? If my hon. Friend the Minister means that only a police officer in uniform can take action under this new clause, he should say so in both subsections (1) and (3). Then everyone, including the right hon. Member for Gorton, will understand where we stand.
The discrepancy between subsection (1), which specifies a senior police officer, who may well be a plainclothesman, and subsection (3), which specifies that a uniformed man must carry out the arrest, creates an anomaly which a precise service, such as the police service, will not find comfortable. I very much hope that the Minister will clear up that matter, so that, in future, there will be no circumstances in which a police officer, doing his duty—though a member of CID in plain clothes—is made a fool of by lawyers who attend to many of the peace convoys, simply because he was not in uniform.

Mr. Sayeed: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) suggested that this clause could be used to persecute those who lead an alternative life style and that that would be wrong. He would be absolutely right if this clause were to be used in such a manner. That is not the purpose, nor the way that the clause will work. What it will do is stop those who are leading an alternative life style from destroying the life styles of other people. Therefore, I welcome this new clause, which I believe is long overdue.
I am delighted that a reluctant Home Office has been forced to change its mind. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that I discussed the matter with his colleagues in the Home Office, with the Lord Chancellor and also with the Secretary of State for the Environment. Until recently, I got nowhere.
This clause is deficient in a number of ways, and I regret that subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) are included. Those provisions mean that if persons are well-mannered and do not cause damage and provided that there are fewer than 12 vehicles in an encampment, they cannot be caught by the clause. Such persons can come on to land, be perfectly polite, not cause damage, have II double-decker buses and 50 tents and still not be caught.
I am not especially happy with the definition of "land". I believe that it includes common land, but I wish to draw the Minister's attention to two examples about which. I wrote to him a few weeks ago. I have not had an answer from his Department. One concerns a group of people — they are not gipsies or hippies; let us say they are tinkers—who are currently living under the M32 flyover in Bristol. I do not see how this clause will do anything


about them. The other example concerns the premises of John Wright on the Bath road that have been virtually destroyed by people encamped in seven vehicles on the land adjoining the premises. Of course, it is hard to prove that those people did the damage.
The current law is ineffective. It is too slow and expensive. Despite what some right hon. and hon. Members have said, I believe that the police are in favour of a toughening of their powers, especially those who are in daily contact with the public. They are sick and tired of being cursed by the public for not having the power to take action. The encampments—just in the past year I have had nine in my constituency — have caused immense distress, anger and fear. The Minister should be aware of the fact that I have had to dissuade some of my constituents from fire-bombing caravans, because they are so bitter that they have been totally unable to get rid of some of these ragamuffins who cause so much distress.
The new clause is pre-emptive. I am absolutely certain that if this clause had not been brought forward—even with its existing faults—someone would soon have died.

Mr. Cash: Some months ago the problem of the peace convoy started off in Staffordshire. Many of my constituents were affected by the goings-on of those members of the peace convoy who first came to Cannock Chase. I am sure the right hon. Member for Gorton will remember—I hope that he will not want to forget this point in view of his remarks about the value of this clause —that the problem originated in the Labour-controlled county council in Staffordshire. I made a phone call to the chief constable of Staffordshire requesting him to provide the type of information to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) referred. The chief constable provided compelling evidence of drugs, abuse of people in the vicinity of my constituency, theft and the most appalling behaviour. All that needed to be brought under control.
I found the remarks of the right hon. Member for Gorton singularly inept in view of the fact that he knew, because the leader of Staffordshire county council arranged either to meet or speak to him on this subject, that this provision was brought about as a result of the actions of the county council in Staffordshire, actions which I thoroughly supported. Yet he now proposes to vote against the provision.
I notice that the right hon. Member for Gorton is fidgeting on the Front Bench. He has good reason to fidget, because he knows that he is about to let down the ratepayers of Staffordshire who elected a Labour county council. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind when this matter is reported in the local press, as I know that it will be.
The ratepayers of Staffordshire had to fork out more than £80,000 as a result of the peace convoy's activities. They took a very dim view of that. Farmers had a great deal of trouble from the peace convoy, whose members stole their produce, invaded their land and caused a great deal of fear and trepidation in the villages in that vicinity.
The Association of Chief Police Officers kindly met a number of Conservative Members from the area. In addition the Home Secretary, the former Minister—my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw)—and two under-secretaries were good enough to have

meetings with us. We also had meetings with the County Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union.
The combined effects of those meetings and the proceedings in Standing Committee convinced me, and I believe most right-minded people, that these new provisions were required. I can only say that it is a pity that we had to wait for consideration of Lords amendments to have a provision of this kind brought forward, as this prevents us from discussing it in the detail that it deserves.
I have some sympathy with the concern that has been expressed by my hon. Friends with regard to the number of vehicles and, frankly, I would have preferred that there should be no limit on the number of vehicles. I feel strongly that these provisions are required and that they impose a minimum deterrent test. They will be extremely helpful to the police. They represent common sense and will be used to help both my constituents and those of other hon. Members.

Mr. Hind: I reject the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that we should have done nothing about the convoy problem. The problem was created last summer, and we must find a remedy. The clause is aimed at convoys. It is impossible to stretch it to cover other matters. Last summer the farmers had to use the High Court procedure, which is slow and cumbersome. This is a quick and cheap remedy. The problem can be dealt with quickly by police intervention before the situation becomes worse and the convoys move on.
Two obvious problems are created by the clause. The first relates to vehicles parked on a highway, whether it be a bridleway, footpath or whatever. Police officers will have to bear in mind that they are dealing either with an offence under the new clause or obstruction—an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. They will have to decide whether the offence is committed on land adjacent to the highway or on the highway itself. Whatever they decide, an offence is committed and the police will have to decide whether to move the convoy on and to arrest, if necessary.
The second problem is that the proposed new clause does not deal with common land. Subsection (1) says that if
two or more persons have entered land as trespassers and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period,
the police may direct them to leave that land.
The right to pass and re-pass applies to common land. The new clause cannot apply to that. Even if a person commits damage on a later occasion, contrary to the rights of common, the new clause cannot apply. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), the proposed new clause would not be appropriate to deal with the Greenham common problem, although I bow to the greater experience of my hon. Friend the Minister.
The clause is intended to deal with the convoy problem. It is much needed. Postponed deliberation until the next Session would mean that when the convoys move again the old laws will still be the only way of dealing with them. That will be expensive for farmers.
The small farmers in west Lancashire will agree that, although the proposition is not ideal, it is better than nothing. I shall vote for it tonight and look for improvements in the next Session.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: With the leave of the House, I shall attempt to answer the various arguments. I am conscious of the fact that the House wishes to move to a Division, so I shall reply as quickly as I can. If I ignore some points, I hope hon. Members will appreciate that no discourtesy is intended.
The speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) demonstrated, as do most of his speeches, that his skills are essentially of the silver plate variety. They are showy and patchy, and after a time they wear thin. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was deeply sympathetic to farmer Attwell, but he concluded that nothing should be done. I suppose that is preferable to his normal solution, which is that, although he is sympathetic to a victim, he wants to do that victim positive harm.
The right hon. Gentleman contended that the civil procedure was sufficient. It is not. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed). The civil law is not, and never can be, an adequate remedy. It cannot he quick enough. The person who suffers an injustice has to find a lawyer, the proceedings have to be drafted and served, a judicial appointment has to be procured and a hearing undertaken. In any event it is necessary to give at least 24 hours notice before implementation to enable a defendant to make representations. The procedures that we suggest are cheap, expeditious and effective. I agree with those hon. Members who have stressed that using the civil procedure requires money. I propose the new clause as a greatly preferred option.
7.45 pm
The right hon. Member for Gorton made a number of bad points about the ability of police officers to form a judgment. He asks how they are to determine whether offensive or abusive action, or damage, has occurred. Police officers have to determine such actions every day of their working lives. He asks how they are to determine whether a person is a trespasser. He should have thought of that earlier, because in 1977 he was a member of a Government who passed the Criminal Law Act, which applies the same test — an officer has to determine whether a person is a trespasser.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the new clause puts an onus on the defendant. It does nothing of the sort. The prosecution must prove every element of the offence. The right hon. Gentleman belly-ached about gipsies. The purpose of the new clause is not to harass innocent gipsies. However, if gipsies create the nuisance contemplated by the Bill, I see no reason why it should not be extended to cover them.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests two amendments to the new clause. He suggests that the power to give a direction to leave should be confined to an inspector or someone of higher rank. Once again the Labour party demonstrates that it has no understanding of the rural areas. In many areas it is difficult enough to find a sergeant, never mind an inspector.

Mr. Kaufman: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Hogg: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman supposing that he has found a point, because I can remind him of the number of police that we have added to the

force since 1979. If we were to agree to the amendment, the provision would be of no benefit to people in the rural areas, which I believe is what the right hon. Gentleman wishes to bring about.
The right hon. Gentleman's second amendment is even more preposterous. He suggests that we remove from the Bill the provision that makes it an offence for a trespasser to re-enter land within three months. What nonsense. If we agreed to that, any offender could play cat and mouse. The direction to leave will he given, the man will toddle to the pub and toddle back again and no offence will be committed. That is absurd. The right hon. Gentleman does not want to solve the problem. He is all hot words and nothing else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) first asked how clause 5 ties up with clause 39 and whether those who protest against fox hunting and the like will be caught by the provision. Clause 39 will not apply as a general proposition, because those who protest against fox hunting do not normally have a common intention to reside. On the other hand, and in specific circumstances, some of the other clauses may apply, for example clause 5. Therefore, although I cannot give him every consolation, the Bill contains material which would remedy what he and I believe to be an abuse.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is a slightly unsatisfactory case, as are most Liberals. His position is: "Well, it is a jolly good Bill, but I am sorry you rushed it." Let us consider what that means. If the farmer Attwell case recurred next year and we had done nothing, the hon. and learned Gentleman would toddle along to this place and accuse the Government of being dilatory. He cannot have it both ways. We have taken prompt action to resolve a mischief.
Incidentally, the House is used by now to a division of opinion between the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party. Here is another interesting example — a division within the Liberal party itself. On the one hand the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) is giving the Bill a warm welcome, saying that it is a happy medium, and on the other hand the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is belly-aching and whining. There is an interesting distinction between the two.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) asked several questions, and I shall deal first with the question of property. I feel like a law student being asked to respond to a number of legal questions.
We have adopted a definition of property that is to be found in section 10(l) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Damage does not include damage to mushrooms growing wild on any land, or to the flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild. Damage to grass growing wild is thus excluded, but damage to grass grown as a crop, or other crops, is included. For that matter, damage to a tree or to a hedge itself is damage to property, whereas stripping off the leaves would not be damage.

Mr. Soley: What about a window box?

Mr. Hogg: I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's window box, and unless it is a very big window box I do not suppose that people would wish to reside there.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) joined his right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton in belly-aching. He asked how a police officer could know whether someone was residing for any period.


That phrase is taken from the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which was passed by a Government whom, I have no doubt, he supported. The hon. Gentleman raised another question about the validity of the direction. If a direction is invalid, no offence is made out. However, that is an issue for the courts. I draw his attention also to the specific defences provided for in subsection (4).
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) raised two questions, which I shall deal with separately. His first question related to subsection (1)(a), namely, who is covered by the concept of abuse to the occupier, to members of his family or to his agents? He questioned the position of public authorities especially. Members of the authority's staff, and others who are authorised to act on behalf of the authority, are covered by the subsection.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory), for Newbury, for Bury St. Edmunds and for Stafford (Mr. Cash), raised the question of setting the limit at 12. I understand their point perfectly well. In the end it is a balancing exercise and a matter of judgment. However, the criteria set out in subsection (1)(a) are alternatives to those set out in subsection (1)(b), or, to put it the other way round, paragraph (b) is an alternative to paragraph (a). We take the view that 12 or more constitutes a nuisance in itself, whereas less than that number would not necessarily do so. However, if there were fewer than 12, that might well trigger the powers under paragraph (a). I can only describe it as a balance, but I hope that I have my hon. Friends' support on this matter.
The comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) were most helpful. I do not follow him in his enthusiasm for Scotland. Although a Lowland Scot by origin, I prefer the law of England. However, there is a more serious point. He said that the provision was ponderous and heavy-handed. We are seeking to strike a balance between the rights of farmers and those of people to whom we do not wish to attach the consequences of the Bill. In making a balance, we are bound to draft criteria and distinctions. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that we have done so fairly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wells asked several questions. He was right to emphasise that the new clause does not create a new offence of criminal trespass. However, failure to comply with a police officer's direction would be an offence.
My hon. Friend asked the meaning of "reasonable excuse". He anticipated part of my reply, namely, that it is up to the courts. My interpretation is that if a person says, "I cannot get off the land because my bus is broken," that would not constitute a reasonable excuse. I would regard that as nonsense. However, a reasonable excuse might well arise if, for example, someone was tending another person who was ill or seriously injured. Clearly these are matters for the courts to determine in particular cases.
My hon. Friend also raised a difficult question about land, and I can assist him in this matter. Land will be covered by the Bill, even if it comprises adjacent fields or fields on the opposite sides of the road if those separate parcels of land are owned or rented by the same person.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury made a helpful speech, and to some extent I can assist him as well. Land will include common land, and common land is thus covered by the Bill. He also made an important point about benders. If people are residing on the land in the circumstances that my hon. Friend described, there would be no difficulty in a police officer holding that they entered with the common intent to reside. Having said that, I hope that I have persuaded my hon. Friend to give us not qualified, but unqualified, support in the Lobby.
As I would have expected, the interesting and difficult speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised points which are attractive and which concern the Government. He raised two points — the need for a pre-emptive power, and the anomaly between the senior police officer and the arresting officer. I shall deal with them separately. Yes, the pre-emptive power has a charm, but it gives rise to considerable difficulties. Once people are on the land, a judgment can be formed as to whether the criteria are satisfied. It is less easy when they are merely poised intending to enter.
On uniforms, yes, there is a difference between the senior officer and the arresting officer. I would say only that in the public order context it is desirable that the arresting officer should be in uniform and, as a matter of practice, that will not create a problem.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East, I give my apologies for not having replied to his letter and I simply re-emphasise that common land is covered by the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford and for Lancashire, West for their support.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West I would only say that we have decided not to extend the Bill to highways, partly because they are already covered by legislation, and partly because the element of damage which would arise from sitting on highways is not nearly as great as the element of damage on other types of land.
I fear that I have gone on somewhat longer than I intended, but I have tried to deal with all the points made by hon. Members. I hope that the House will regard the new clause as a balanced and proper approach to an urgent and pressing problem.

Amendment (a) negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 106.

Division No. 306]
8 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Aitken, Jonathan
Blackburn, John


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashdown, Paddy
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brinton, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Malcolm


Batiste, Spencer
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nick


Beith, A. J.
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Benyon, William
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, John (Luton N)






Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McQuarrie, Albert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Major, John


Carttiss, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Cash, William
Malone, Gerald


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Marland, Paul


Chapman, Sydney
Marlow, Antony


Chope, Christopher
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Maude, Hon Francis


Clegg, Sir Walter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cockeram, Eric
Meadowcroft, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Mellor, David


Conway, Derek
Merchant, Piers


Coombs, Simon
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Couchman, James
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Cranborne, Viscount
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Crouch, David
Moate, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Moore, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Neale, Gerrard


Dover, Den
Nelson, Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Neubert, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Newton, Tony


Evennett, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norris, Steven


Farr, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fletcher, Alexander
Ottaway, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Forth, Eric
Pawsey, James


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fox, Sir Marcus
Penhaligon, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Gale, Roger
Pollock, Alexander


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Porter, Barry


Gow, Ian
Portillo, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
Powell, William (Corby)


Greenway, Harry
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gregory, Conal
Price, Sir David


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Raffan, Keith


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rhodes James, Robert


Harris, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hawksley, Warren
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Roe, Mrs Marion


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rost, Peter


Hickmet, Richard
Rowe, Andrew


Hicks, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hind, Kenneth
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hirst, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Holt, Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Silvester, Fred


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Sims, Roger


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jackson, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kennedy, Charles
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Speed, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Spencer, Derek


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Livsey, Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lord, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Maclean, David John
Thornton, Malcolm


Maclennan, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Tracey, Richard





Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wigley, Dafydd


Waddington, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Wallace, James
Woodcock, Michael


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren, Kenneth



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Whitfield, John
Mr. Richard Ryder.


Whitney, Raymond



NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Janner, Hon Greville


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bagier, Gordon A T.
Lambie, David


Barnett, Guy
Lamond, James


Barron, Kevin
Leighton, Ronald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bermingham, Gerald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bidwell, Sydney
Loyden, Edward


Blair, Anthony
McCartney, Hugh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Madden, Max


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Martin, Michael


Clay, Robert
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Mikardo, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Craigen, J. M.
Nellist, David


Dalyell, Tam
O'Brien, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
O'Neill, Martin


Deakins, Eric
Patchett, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dixon, Donald
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Raynsford, Nick


Douglas, Dick
Redmond, Martin


Dubs, Alfred
Richardson, Ms Jo


Duffy, A. E. P.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Eadie, Alex
Rooker, J. W.


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fatchett, Derek
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Faulds, Andrew
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fisher, Mark
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Flannery, Martin
Snape, Peter


Foulkes, George
Soley, Clive


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E.
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


George, Bruce
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Godman, Dr Norman
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Gourlay, Harry
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Tinn, James


Hardy, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wareing, Robert


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Welsh, Michael


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Wilson, Gordon


Home Robertson, John



Hoyle, Douglas
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order and taking up the time of the House, but I shall be brief.
Yesterday evening during the debate on the Housing and Planning Bill I moved, on behalf of the Opposition


and other parties, that we should support the other place in the amendment that was carried against the Government the previous week on the issue of the right to buy properties specifically designed and suitable for elderly people. The Government challenged us on that and the Lords amendment was overturned. Earlier this evening, the other place, by a substantial majority of 24 votes, stuck to its original demand. It behoves us on behalf of all hon. Members to ask the Government to make a statement about their intentions.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As a result of the vote about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has spoken, and given that last night it was made clear that the Government had no objection in principle to a reverse —a reverse that has now taken place in the other House —could the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will now accept what the other place has done to the Bill?
The decision in the other place has two major and important results. The first is that there should be no further risk of the matter going backwards and forwards between the two Houses. Secondly, we are already under substantial time pressure between now and the proposed end of the Session on Friday. Some Bills from the other place are arriving here a day later for amendments to be considered. It would be procedurally difficult at best, although not impossible, for this Bill to come back, given that there would be a further substantial debate in this House. Yesterday the amendments were the subject of a most substantial debate that lasted for almost a couple of hours. The debate would last even longer if the Bill were to come back.
The Government have been defeated twice by substantial majorities, and earlier they accepted the principle of defeat. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether they will gracefully accept that they have lost on this issue and that old people will be exempted from having their homes taken out of the public sector? That would be justice.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I do not want to inject any element of controversy into the evening, but I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will take a few lessons from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who made an effective interjection on a point of order and apologised for impeding another debate. For the reasons given by

those two hon. Gentlemen, this matter requires a speedy resolution. A decision will be announced in the House quite soon, through the usual channels.

Clause 35

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS; REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 21, line 1, leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert—
(1) The provisions of this Act extend to England and Wales except so far as they—

(a) amend or repeal an enactment which does not so extend, or
(b) relate to the extent of provisions to Scotland or Northern Ireland.

(2) The following provisions of this Act extend to Scotland—
in Part I, section 9(2) except paragraph (a);
in Part II, sections 12 and 14 to 16;
Part III;
Part V, except sections (Contamination of or interference with goods with intention of causing public alarm or anxiety, &amp;c.), (Power to direct trespassers to leave), 33 (4), subsections (1) and (3) of this section and any provision amending or repealing an enactment which does not extend to Scotland.
(3) The following provisions of this Act extend to Northern Ireland—
sections (Contamination of or interference with goods with intention of causing public alarm or anxiety, &amp;c.), 34, this subsection, section 36 and paragraph 6A of Schedule 2.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is essentially technical and requires no amplification.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 33, line 18, at end insert—
3 Edw. 7. Erith Tramways and Section 171.
c.ccl. Improvement Act 1903.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 33 and 36.

Mr. Hogg: This is also a technical amendment and my previous comments apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Housing (Scotland) Bill

Consideration of Lords Amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment to which this House has disagreed, Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment to which this House has disagreed and Lords consequential Amendments, considered.

New Clause

FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO ARE HOMELESS OR THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS

The Lords do not insist on their Amendment to insert a new Clause after Clause 19 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof, after clause 19, insert the following new Clause"—
.—(1) The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) In section 1(2) (homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(d) it is overcrowded as defined in section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and may endanger the health of the occupants.
(3) In section 4 (duties of housing authorities to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(7) Where a local authority has a duty under subsections (4) and (5) above "accommodation" shall be defined as accommodation that shall not be overcrowded as defined in section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and which does not pose a threat to the health of the occupants.".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is the combination of lengthy and constructive discussions in the House and in another place on the likely effect of a decision by the Law Lords on an appeal under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, which has become known as the Puhlhofer case. Hon. Members will recall that earlier we discussed an amendment proposed by the other place to the Act when we last considered the Bill on 2 July. The Government were unable to agree to that earlier amendment because, as I explained at the time, we felt that it would give rise to problems of interpretation and would impose excessive additional duties on local authorities. I also made it clear at that time that the amendment was unnecessary because no substantial evidence had been produced to support the allegations that the Law Lords judgment was having an adverse effect on the prospects of homeless people.
I accept that this new amendment is intended to meet our criticisms of the earlier version and that it has been altered in order to do so. It goes a considerable way towards removing the objections that I raised at that time.
I also accept that there are strong feelings in the House and in another place that, whatever the evidence, we should take steps now to resolve any possible adverse consequences arising from the Law Lords' decision in the Puhlhofer case rather than wait to see whether the decision has any effect and respond at a later date.
Under those conditions, and given that the amendment is a considerable improvement on the earlier version, I am prepared to accept it. As I said in July, we will continue

to monitor the position. In addition, we are about to launch a research project to look at the way in which local authorities operate the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and to assess how the system meets the needs of the homeless. We must reserve the right to return with alternative proposals at some stage if it emerges that the amendment is giving rise to significant difficulties. For the present, I believe that the intention of the amendment is clear and that the worst defects of the earlier version have been removed. Therefore, I recommend that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. John Maxton: From his point of view, the Minister has made the best of rather a bad job. It should be recognised that the Government have not suddenly agreed to this course out of the bigness and goodness of their heart. When the House was considering Lords amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill on the night before the Bill that is before us was considered in another place, a similar, but not exactly the same, amendment was passed.
As the Minister said last night during the course of our consideration of the Housing and Planning Bill, he is a great one for uniformity. He believes that there should be this example of uniformity between England, Wales and Scotland and that we should not be out of step. I note from the response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that the Minister does not go for uniformity between Scotland and England when it conies to old folks' housing that has been occupied by the elderly. The definition that applies to that housing in England is much wider than that which applies in Scotland, and I am sure that many authorities in Scotland would wish to be able to apply the same definition.
We welcome the Government's change of mind, however much it has been forced upon them. It can be said that a change of mind has been forced upon the Minister by circumstances which have been out of control. We welcome the fact that he has at last accepted some form of resolution of the Puhlhofer judgment.
The resolution may not be perfect—I am sure that it will prove not to be so—and problems may arise, and if that is the position the Government will have to bring the issue back to the House. If the amendment that is before us is one that the Minister believes to be necessary, we could have saved ourselves much parliamentary time if he had drafted and moved a similar amendment in Committee or on Report. He could have taken steps to arrange for such an amendment to be moved in another place. It is a fact that he has been forced reluctantly to accept the amendment that is before us.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is basing much of his argument on uniformity, and I suggest that he examines the equivalent English amendment. If he does so, he will find that the Scottish amendment is different.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister is normally better at listening to arguments. I made the point that he has raised when I said that the Scottish amendment was not exactly the same as the English amendment. The basic case, however, is the same. The Puhlhofer decision was overturned in another place. To use the words that I employed earlier, a similar though different amendment came before the other place when it was considering the Bill, and the Government had to accept it because they


knew that the Bill would fall if they resisted it. If they had opposed the amendment in another place, they would have been unable to bring the matter back to this place. Therefore, they were forced to accept the amendment. The amendment meets what the Opposition have been suggesting for a long time, and I am glad that the Minister has at last come to the same conclusion as ourselves.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On behalf of the alliance, I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the amendment. I do not wish to be other than pleased that we have reached this position, especially as the Act to which we are referring is the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which was piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). It is one of the most used Acts to face Members week by week and it is my experience that it is the one that is quoted most often at me.
The argument which led to the amendment turned on an issue which could have seriously undermined the effectiveness of what has proved to be a useful Act. Without the amendment, local authorities would have been allowed to house homeless persons in sub-standard property. I am sorry that the issue had to go backwards and forwards between this House and another place, but I am glad that at the end of the day there is agreement on the amendment in its final form. In the circumstances, I think that every one of us should be satisfied that on a rare occasion—too rare an occasion — we have achieved a real and genuine alteration to a Bill as it has proceeded within and between the two Houses.
Now that we are close to Prorogation, it is somewhat ironic that it is the unelected House that has managed to encapsulate the views of the people's representatives rather than the elected House. If this place had not had to take account of the views and amendments of another place, it might have tried to streamroller through Parliament the original provision. In this instance the existence of an upper House has proved to be effective. I am not sure how often during this Session it has defeated the Government, but it has done so on many more occasions than we have in this place. The Minister commented to me informally before we embarked on these debates that long may the other place continue to do so because there lies his future career.
We have made a bit of a meal out of this issue, but we have secured a good amendment. The Government have accepted it and I am sure that the House is pleased that they have done so. I can only hope that the next amendment will proceed with the same speed and degree of support.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendment. I intended to make the same comment as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), that the Government have been driven to accept it by the onset of Prorogation. I remember the hostility that the Minister showed towards taking any action of the sort outlined in the amendment when we debated the matter at an earlier stage of the Bill's passage. All I can do at this late stage is to welcome the Minister's sudden conversion and acceptance of the persuasive arguments that we and many lobbyists have advanced on

the need for a statutory measure to take care of the huge hole which was blown in the original legislation by another place when it acted in its judicial capacity.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENT OF 1980 ACT

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in line 2, at end insert—
, or from the date of first being registered by the Housing Corporation (whichever is the later),

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I hope that in discussing the amendment the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will make the same sort of speech as he made last night when he referred to the standing of the Conservative party in the polls in Scotland. The effect of that was to raise the standing of my party by six percentage points. I hope that he will feel able to do the same for us today.
The amendment was tabled in another place by the Earl of Perth. He said that he supported the right to buy, except in a number of limited areas. The amendment exempts from the right to buy houses belonging to charitable associations which may form after 14 November 1985, and accordingly it has a limited scope. It is not a fundamental change and it will not affect the rights of any existing tenants. Indeed, it will not affect the rights of many future tenants, because there is already a range of exemptions for small associations and for houses for special needs. These exemptions will apply to many of the houses provided by such new charitable housing associations as may form in future.
The amendment raises the prospect of increased administrative controls over the registration and funding of new associations. We shall need to ensure that new associations are not used as devices to avoid the right to buy and do not provide houses that could be more appropriately provided by associations which are within the right to buy provisions. I hope that it will be possible to devise these terms in such a way as will leave the existing wide range of activities of the present charitable associations largely untouched. The controls will lie primarily with the Housing Corporation, which already has the necessary powers.
I have to say that matters would have been simpler without the amendment, but, as it has been introduced and will have a relatively minor effect, we do not seek to remove it. As the Earl of Perth said, the amendment is a new idea which did not arise in the long debates that took place in this House or in another place. It is new material. On the basis that I have described, I recommend that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. Maxton: This is the final farce of the Bill. Although we are delighted that at this late stage the Government are prepared to accept this final amendment on charitable status housing associations, it was a long, weary fight to get them to do so. In the first instance, the only charitable housing associations which were to be exempted were those which had registered offices in England or Wales under the Charities Act. In Committee, the Government agreed that any charitable association recognised as such by the Inland Revenue before 1980 would be exempt from the Bill. The other place passed an amendment similar to,


although not exactly the same as, this one—there are differences between similar to and exactly the same as, I point out to the Minister—which extended it essentially to all housing associations, both present and future, recognised as charities. The Government overturned that in this place and insisted that there should be a change. They were prepared to extend the date from 3 October 1980 to 14 November 1985.
8.30 pm
We have finally come to a solution that the Government are prepared to accept. It is that all those housing associations registered as charities before 14 November 1985 will remain exempt from the clauses of the Bill. Any future associations which are able to obtain charitable recognition from the Housing Corporation will again be exempt. Essentially, that leaves us with three housing associations in the whole of Scotland that will not be covered, although they are recognised by the Inland Revenue as charities.
The first is Gowrie in Dundee, which is a small housing association with fewer than 100 houses and so exempt under another part of the Bill. The second is Edinvar, where again many of the houses will be exempt because they are for special needs. The third is the Link housing association, which works largely in Edinburgh. Despite all the changes that the Minister has made, he has achieved what he set out to achieve—to allow tenants of the Link housing association the right to buy the houses at a discount.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and I made the point that the Bill is the "Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Benefit Bill". It is designed to try to save the Conservative Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who has a small majority, but has in his constituency the Link housing association houses at Barnton. The Link housing association gave its tenants the right to buy but was not prepared to give them discounts. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West wanted them to have discounts, so that, as a Conservative Government had introduced the Bill and given tenants that right, his seat would be saved.

Mr. Ancram: rose—

Mr. Maxton: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I do not see what other explanation there can be.

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to mislead the House, but he is giving the impression that in only one housing association will the right to buy be exercised. He will be aware, as he is well experienced in housing association matters, that there are 50 housing associations in which the right to buy will now be statutorily available.

Mr. Maxton: Again, had the Minister been listening, he would have known that I made it clear that this concerns three housing associations recognised as charities. All the rest which are recognised as charities will not be exempted and large numbers of others will have the right to buy.

Mr. Ancram: Link operates in other constituencies.

Mr. Maxton: I recognise that point, but the basic point remains. This was all about the housing association in Barnton in the first place.
I find it astonishing that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is not here to take part in the debate. It would have been appropriate for the Secretary of State, just for once, to have allowed his PPS to come to the House to make his "thank you" speech to the House and the Ministers for allowing this to take place. It has been an abuse of the House and of the other place that so much time has been spent on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report, on Third Reading and on the procedures through the other place, back here once and back again, just to ensure that the tenants in the Link housing association, among all the other housing associations, should have the right to buy.
This process comes close to gerrymandering a constituency—using the power of the House to save one Member of Parliament. The mess into which the Minister has got himself about the charitable status of housing associations is such that it would be better, even at this late stage, to withdraw that part of the Bill and start again next year. He should treat the matter in that way because he has got himself into a ludicrous position. I know that he will not withdraw the amendment, but I wish that he had the courage to do so.

Mr. Bruce: I shall not attempt to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), which was interesting but not necessarily relevant to the issue before the House. I am glad that the Government have accepted this amendment, but the House should not be too ecstatic about it. Some of us have no fundamental objection to the idea that people should be entitled to buy the houses that they rent, including housing association houses, but have real concern, which the Minister has acknowledged, that small housing associations and those providing housing for special purposes will find their capital base eroded by being forced to sell houses at a substantial discount.
I do not wish the House to be under any illusion that we are satisfied that the Bill has provided enough safeguards for some of those associations, although some have been accepted during the passage of the Bill. As the Minister acknowledged, the date is such that the number of housing associations that will be taken in is not great. The implication is that he has reserved the right to monitor and change if necessary.
The point has been registered, and the other place has managed to achieve something that the Government— perhaps reluctantly—have accepted. As we have that small modification, we welcome it, with the clear understanding that we will be looking at the way that the right to buy, as it affects housing associations, takes effect. We shall be looking to see whether safeguards need to be applied later.
For example, the Minister will know that the biggest housing association of all, the Scottish special housing association, does not operate the right to buy in a fair way. In the north-east of Scotland, the only people able to get SSHA houses have been oil workers, although the demand for oil workers is not high. In some cases, there is evidence that non-British citizens have been able to acquire those houses under the right to buy. Some assurances on that would be welcome. A small amendment has been accepted, and I am glad that the Minister has agreed that this change can stand.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Bill

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That, when the Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill reports the Bill to the House, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.
That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Bill stood when proceedings thereon were suspended in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) if the Committee has reported that it has gone through the Bill, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from a Select Committee;
(c) if the Committee has reported that it has not completed its consideration of the Bill—

(i) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Committee in this Session;
(ii) all Petitions presented in this Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
(iii) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in this Session which have been reported to the House shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
(iv) the Instruction [17th July] shall be an Instruction to the Committee;
(v) only those Petitions mentioned in subparagraph (ii) above, and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the next Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(vi) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;
(vii) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it;
(viii) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;
(ix) any person registered in this Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practice as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in the next Session;

(d) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session; and
(e) if the Bill is reported, or is deemed by virtue of paragraph (b) above to have been reported, from a Select Committee in the next Session, it shall thereupon stand re-committed to a Standing Committee.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

We are here to consider a further motion on the Channel Tunnel Bill. The House has debated the Bill four times, once on Second Reading and on three further occasions which were essentially procedural. I crave the understanding of the House for taking up its time yet again with a procedural motion for a carry-over to permit the Channel Tunnel Bill to run from this Session to the next. Hon. Members will realise that the result of the previous procedural debates was to vest the hybrid Bill Select Committee with a series of unusual powers: to receive petitions against the Bill from individual petitioners up to 10 days after the closing date for corporate petitioners; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn, as the House traditionally puts it, "from place to place"; and to consider alternative access arrangements.
The House will know that the Committee has made full use of those varied powers, and although it has not yet reported the Bill, I wish to pay tribute to the solid hard work and dedication which the members of the Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) have brought to their task. Of course, the Committee's work is not yet finished. It has now sat for 34 days, for a total of about 220 hours, and has heard evidence or submissions on 4,873 petitions.
Without precedent, the Committee sat for six days away from Westminster, at Hythe and then at Dover, where it heard evidence from many local people who considered themselves to be personally affected by the project. The Committee has visited the principal sites in Kent affected by the Bill.
It would be improper in this debate to go into the substance of the evidence heard by the Committee. It is all there, about 2,000 pages of it, not counting the many dozens of documents handed in, in the minutes of evidence that have been printed daily. It would be equally improper if I attempted to persuade the House of the merits of the Government's case on the many aspects of the project examined by the Committee. The Committee will reach its conclusions on the evidence that it has received and will amend the Bill accordingly.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Procedurally, would it not have been a better order of events to have allowed the publication of the Committee's findings, which will take place tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock, before we had this debate? It was always understood that there would have to be a carry-over motion, but the arguments about the procedure would be far better made in the House with the knowledge of the Select Committee's findings.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Whatever changes to the Bill the Select Committee may recommend, they will make no difference to the need to carry it over. We are not dealing with changes in the Bill, only with carrying it over. Therefore, we are discussing a procedural matter. The purpose of the motion is independent of the Committee's decision. Its object is to ensure that, as the end of the Session approaches, the enormous amount of work done by the Committee is carried over to the new Session and not wasted.
It would be nonsense if, after the Bill were reintroduced in the 1986–87 Session, a new Committee had to be formed to reconsider it from scratch. That would do a considerable disservice to the multitude of petitioners who


have written and submitted petitions and have attended the hearings to explain personally to the Committee their anxieties about the project. Moreover, there is nothing unusual about the central purpose of the motion. It is the normal practice of the House, with hybrid Bills as with private Bills, to continue work from one Session to the next when a Bill cannot be brought to Royal Assent in the Session in which it was introduced. Previous Channel Tunnel Bills were continued—in 1974 not merely into a new Session but into two new Parliaments.
The Government have made it clear from the start of work on the development of the Channel tunnel proposals in early 1985 that the Bill would need to run from one Session to the next. The House implicitly acknowledged that in the debate on 3 June when it agreed to dispense with Standing Orders and permit the Bill to proceed notwithstanding its introduction late in the Session and well after the 27 November deadline which the House applies to private Bills.
Passage from one Session to the next can be dealt with either by a carry-over motion in the old Session or a revival motion in the new. The House may note that in 1974, at the first dissolution, the carry-over route was adopted through a general motion applicable to all hybrid Bills extant at that time. That can be found in the Official Report at column 1468 on 8 February 1974.
At the second dissolution in that year, the revival route was followed, and a revival motion for the Channel Tunnel Bill was debated on 11 November. On this occasion, the Government have opted for the carry-over route, because that eliminates the period of apparent uncertainty when the Bill would otherwise lapse on prorogation, and because it allows work on the Bill to recommence in the new Session without delay.
The motion, despite its usual purpose, is nevertheless unusually long because the Select Committee has not yet finished its work. Those who have read the Committee's minutes of evidence will know that, on 30 October, it finished taking the main body of evidence. Hon. Members will also be aware that, on 29 October, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central, reported a resolution of the Committee:
That the Committee, having met to consider the Channel Tunnel Bill and to hear Petitioners as directed by the orders of the House on 33 days and not having completed its consideration of the Bill recommends that the House should provide for the work of the Committee to be continued, if necessary, by a Select Committee in the forthcoming session to which all Petitions referred to this Committee and not withdrawn and all Minutes of Evidence taken before and documents received by this Committee should be referred.
Thus, the House does not yet know whether the Committee will report the Bill in the present Session and the motion must, therefore, cover both eventualities, which it does. If the Committee were to complete its work in the next few days before Prorogation and were to report that it had gone through the Bill and amended it, the first clause and all the paragraphs of the second clause except for paragraph (c) would apply. The Bill would be deemed to have been reported in the next Session and would proceed immediately to a Standing Committee in the new Session. I shall return to that point, which is contained in paragraph (e), in a moment.
If the Committee was not to complete its consideration of the Bill in the present Session, it would report the Bill without amendment and the first clause and the second

clause except for (b) would apply. The Bill would be ordered to be printed in the new Session and would proceed immediately to a Select Committee.
Under paragraph (c)(i), the membership would be the same as that of the present Select Committee. It would effectively be the same Committee. Under paragraph (c)(ii), (iii) and (v), all the outstanding petitions, minutes and papers would stand referred to the Committee and the instruction of the House for the Committee to be empowered to consider alternative access arrangements would also be carried over. Under paragraph (c)(vii), the new Committee would have the same powers to sit, notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report minutes of evidence.

Mr. John Silkin: The last words of the motion are:
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
As the Minister knows, Standing Orders differ from sessional orders. Standing Orders remain orders of the House of Commons unless and until negatived by the House in some other way.
Having mentioned the alternatives depending on what the Select Committee might decide and remarked on the precedents, the Minister talked about going on from one Session to another and from one Parliament to another. Do those last words mean that the Government are telling us that the motion, if passed, will he valid not only for next Session but for the Session afterwards, if necessary? It that is the case, the House is entitled to know why.

Mr. Mitchell: No, it refers to this Session. Another motion would be in front of the House if another Session were involved.

Mr. Silkin: Then will the Minister tell the House why those words were have been used?

Mr. Mitchell: I shall return to that point in a moment. Could I add that, on the basis of the resolution of the Select Committee that was reported to the House, there is no indication that these powers would be required, but it would not be proper, in the absence of such an indication, not to reconstitute the Committee with the same powers as before.
Paragraph (d) of the motion ensures that the position as regards the examiners and the Standing Orders Committee is preserved. The House decided on 3 June to dispense with Standing Orders so far as the Bill, as introduced in this Session, was concerned, but if the Select Committee decides to amend the Bill by adopting the alternative arrangements for access to the Folkestone terminal site, those amendments will need to be considered by the examiners.
Finally, I refer to paragraph (e) of the second clause, dealing with committal to a Standing Committee. It is usual for a hybrid Bill, when reported from a Select Committee, to be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House. However, if the Bill contains a substantial volume of public law provisions, as in the present instance — that is, jurisdiction, frontier control arrangements, policing and safety—it is appropriate to consider these just as though they were part of a normal public Bill. Accordingly, the motion makes provision for the Bill to be referred to a Standing Committee as soon as the Select Committee has reported that it has gone through the Bill.
The motion is but the latest in a series of pragmatic motions that the Government have brought before the House during the passage of the Bill, designed to ensure that the hybrid Bill procedure can deal flexibly with the task of carefully considering the effect of the proposed legislation on individuals and safeguarding their rights, and at the same time responding to the need to discharge the business of the House speedily and efficiently.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I begin by joining the Minister in paying tribute to the members of the Select Committee who have been looking at the Channel Tunnel Bill. They have dealt with over 3,000 petitions in 33 days. I do not know what the report will say, and I cannot guarantee in advance that I shall agree with its conclusions. However, I can guarantee that I shall not challenge the integrity of those hon. Members who served on the Select Committee. I am sure that they will have reached their conclusions in a manner that shows that they have been worthy of discharging the duties that this House has placed upon them.
The members of the Select Committee had to operate within the very severe constraints that were laid down in the Bill and, indeed, by the hybrid Bill procedure. The Chairman has ruled—and I do not challenge his ruling —that the principle cannot be discussed. I do not intend to discuss the principle, but there is no doubt that the ruling that the principle cannot be discussed has left many people feeling very dissatisfied.
It may be that frank discussion of the principle, of the viability of the project and of the capacity of the promoters to rebut challenges to its viability might have been helped had there been proper discussion of the principle. Indeed, it has been reported that there have been some financial hiccoughs and doubt about whether or not Eurotunnel would be able to raise the money by the deadline. Had there been a proper opportunity for the Eurotunnel promoters to argue their case more fully than was permitted by the procedure, it might have helped them. The freedom of opponents to cast doubt on the viability of the project has left Eurotunnel in an exposed position, with the supporters of Eurotunnel not having the same opportunity to argue back.
Of course, none of us can tell, but I repeat my feeling that discussion of the principle could have been of benefit to everyone, including the promoters. A public inquiry would still, in my view, be better for the general appreciation of the tunnel and of its potential benefits, and it would also allow the case of those who seriously doubt the value of the tunnel to have their case properly examined and answered.
The problem over acceptance of the tunnel by the general public remains the Government's decision to proceed only on the basis of the general homily that "it will be a good thing." Regrettably, the Government have not really gone beyond that stage of the argument since Second Reading. When we discussed the principle, the Government did not begin to make the case for regional development and sadly, during the period during which the Committee has been sitting, the Government have remained silent on issues such as inland customs clearance away from entry to the tunnel. Some people in the north of England and in parts of Scotland are seriously looking

at these issues. Again, sadly, the Government have done nothing to put the case for freight assembly points away from the mouth of the tunnel.
It is true that encouraging advertisements have been placed by British Rail in the national newspapers, declaring that its interest in the tunnel begins at X, Y or Z, but that is not good enough. The Government should be doing much more. But what is probably worse than their inaction is that the Government have abused the hybrid Bill procedure by inserting proposals for the A20 in the Bill. There has been a great deal of controversy about this. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has said that the Government's conduct
poses an unprecedented threat to the democratic planning system".
The Countyside Commission is reported to be very seriously worried about the damage to the landscape by the A20 proposals.
It is alleged—I do not know whether or not it is true, because I have not read every single word of the minutes of evidence of the Select Committee—that the Secretary of State, through parliamentary counsel, tried three times to persuade the Committee not to admit evidence on the A20 proposals. We were told on Second Reading that the hybrid Bill procedure would permit all objections to be fully considered, but we know now that that claim was being resisted. I do not believe that the Government are entitled to change planning procedures surreptitiously. If there is a case for altering planning procedures, this should be done after due consultation and a full debate of specific proposals by the Government.
I am aware of the argument and the feeling that planning inquiries take far too long and that they attract all sorts of people who are not directly affected by a particular scheme. I understand why Governments, local authorities and private individuals can be worried by the length of time inquiries take and that they can be frustrated because of the way in which some people exploit planning procedures when making their case. However, if there is to be a change of this kind — it is a major change in planning procedures — it ought not to be brought about by sticking bits into a Bill and trying to create precedents that will be quoted in future as the way to proceed.
The Minister quite fairly and properly — I have no complaint about it— has sought to justify or explain the need for the carry-over motion by pointing out what happened to previous Channel Tunnel Bills. However, we must be wary of doing something in a hybrid Bill, and apparently assenting to it, and then saying that as it was accepted the last time there is no reason why that procedure should not be used in other cases. The manner of the Government's proposals for the A20 strengthens the case for a public inquiry.
The hybrid Bill procedure has avoided proper assessment and discussion of British Rail's decision to develop Waterloo as its London terminal for the tunnel services. I understand that the Chairman of the Select Committee has ruled that the Waterloo development is outside its remit. For those who live around Waterloo this is a very serious matter. How are their concerns to be properly taken into account? Will the Waterloo development require a private Bill from British Rail? I do not know the answer, but perhaps the Minister can say whether that is the next stage. Will there be a public inquiry into Waterloo? I think that that has already been


resisted in certain quarters. However, we should be told exactly how the Government propose to proceed. I hope that the Minister will not simply say that it is a matter for British Rail. The Government must know what is to happen, and they should tell us.
Whatever happens, it might help British Rail if it had to advocate its case in the public arena, so that it could be given proper public scrutiny. In that case, those in the area might well accept the arguments. I do not know whether they would do, but British Rail's case should be tested in the widest possible forum.
Today, I received a submission from the British Ports Association. Indeed, I suspect that all hon. Members who have said anything about the Channel tunnel have probably received a copy of that brief. It makes three basic points. First, it is concerned about the possibility of a subsidy to Eurotunnel. It is believed that the Government may introduce an amendment to the Bill making it clear that there will not be any subsidy. I do not know how that would be inserted into the Bill, but that is the suggestion.
The BRA is also concerned about the possibility of predatory pricing, and is unhappy with the effectiveness of existing competition law in preventing that. Interestingly, I raised that point on Second Reading, and. I share the association's concern that our competition law does not provide the sort of protection needed for our ports and ferry services. That should be properly examined. The BPA is also unhappy about the scrutiny of the safety commission.
Those are all reasonable points that need to be debated and decided. I shall not pursue them further today, but if the Bill reaches Committee, we shall pursue them by way of amendment, and we shall debate those issues fully. It remains our view that a public inquiry would have been, and still is, the best way to proceed. It need not take an inordinate time and it would provide a much better opportunity to get things right. We are concerned that we should get the Channel tunnel right, and that we should not simply leave things to private industry and hope for the best, without doing anything to take care of the public.
For those reasons, I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends should oppose the continuation motion.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: When my hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate, he did so in a style that was probably designed to make the whole subject sound as boring as possible. Of course, I sympathise with that technique. After all, it is no longer a case of "glad confident morning again". The trumpets are no longer sounding for the project anywhere outside Eurotunnel's offices, and they sound pretty discordant even there. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister felt it appropriate to adopt the tone of an undertaker muttering a funeral dirge from the Dispatch Box.
If I judge the mood of the House correctly, this is not the occasion to give the Bill the thorough mauling that it deserves. Just a few cuffs and a love tap or two will do. Consequently, I shall content myself with that this evening.
This motion is the parliamentary equivalent of switching on a life support machine to prolong artificially the survival and lifespan of a dying Channel tunnel project. Two weeks ago it seemed that the project was clinically dead, when Eurotunnel failed yet again to meet its self-imposed deadline for raising merely the first £206

million of seed money out of a total of £5 billion of funds required. Yet lo and behold, after a frantic weekend of high voltage resuscitation techniques by the Bank of England and others in high places who should have known better, the patient was temporarily saved. But saved for what purpose, for how long and for whose benefit? Those are questions that need to be answered if we are to decide on what is the right and proper course of action for the House to take before voting for the Bill to be carried over to a new Session of Parliament.

Mr. Keith Speed: Twice this year I have heard my hon. Friend give the tunnel its obituary: once when there was a change in the French Government, and once when he was confidently predicting that the group would not raise the money. He continues to write obituaries, but the patient refuses to die, and as far as my constituents are concerned, is very much alive and kicking.

Mr. Aitken: I am always surrounded by optimists. However, we have had all this life and death excitement over the first 4 per cent. of the funds to be raised. My hon. Friend should imagine himself as an investor asked to put his money into this project. After a great deal of bally-hoo and excitement with people saying, "This is one of the great projects of the century which will bring a new vision and a new Europhile excitement to the world," imagine the project then being able to raise only £4 out of every £100 needed for the investment. With that humiliating failure in mind, my hon. Friend, instead of whistling to keep up his courage, should read the comments of sober newspapers such as the Financial Times and many others that have basically said, "Whatever else is true, there is a very hard row to hoe ahead for the Eurotunnel consortium."
Simply to ask the questions that I began by asking, such as what is the purpose of prolonging the life of this project and for whose benefit is it, is embarrassingly to lift the veil from the profound dilemma that the Government face on this project. The Government have become blinded to the national interest, first, by the disease of what I call political monumentitis, and, secondly, by what might be called a schizophrenia as to whether it is a free market project or a political project. One has to ask: in whose political interest is this project? After all, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister herself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who introduced the Bill, were both dedicated opponents of the Channel tunnel. They repeatedly opposed it in Cabinet Committee meetings whenever it was mentioned by former Secretaries of State for Transport, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
Secondly, there was a complete change of direction. A go-ahead was given after a meeting between President Mitterrand and our Prime Minister at Avignon. This was followed by ceremonies in Avignon and Lille and in the precincts of Canterbury cathedral among a pageantry and a sort of faux bonhomie insincerity unseen in Anglo-French relations since the field of the cloth of gold. All these activities were for a French political purpose.
It has been possible clearly to see the French purpose. There was a short-term political objective and two massive long-term political gains. The short-term objective was a French election. President Mitterrand was in a hurry, desperate to save his majority. Another problem in the Channel area was a Socialist stronghold which was


disintegrating electorally before his eyes. How wonderful to be able to unveil an exciting new job-creating piece of social and political engineering. The French President had a deal which did not do him much good in the French elections, but nevertheless a short-term objective was achieved.
Much more serious than the French political manoeuvring is the fact that the French are enjoying two massive long-term gains in their national interest. First, by this project we are giving away, and they are gaining, a slice of the cross-Channel industry. It is an industry which happens to be a great British success, both as a service industry and as an industrial story. The cross-Channel industry is worth to this country about £800 million a year. Of that sum, 72 per cent. is in British hands. The industry, by its very nature, is largely British. The British, like the French, go south for their holidays. That holiday traffic makes up the bulk of the industry. Of every £100 spent in that industry, £72 goes to British companies—British shipowners and British ports. That money creates British jobs. Only 12 per cent. of that industry is in French hands. The remainder is mainly in Belgian hands. So there is a growing concern, a successful growth industry dominated, and rightly so, by British companies — British shipowners, British ports and so on.
On the day the Channel tunnel opens, whatever share the tunnel gets of the market, the balance will be tilted dramatically away from Britain's hands. If Britain ends up owning 40 per cent. of the tunnel—I suggest that that is optimistic — her share of the market will have fallen from a 72 per cent. to a 40 per cent. interest, and the French interest will have increased. In one move we are giving away a major, successful slice of a good British industry. That is very much in France's interest and against ours.
Secondly, there is a massive long-term gain to France's maritime and railway industries and a loss especially to our maritime industry. The gains to the French maritime industry are perhaps best illustrated by looking at the hypothetical route of cargo coming into this country from a foreign destination, say, South America, the middle east or the far east. At the moment, because Britain is an island, all cargo that comes into Britain has to come through a British port, contributing to that port in dues, cargo and freight handling charges and jobs. The day the Channel tunnel opens, there will be a complete alternative — a shipper will be able to offload his cargo in French ports, such as Toulon and Marseilles, send the goods to Britain on the high-speed French network, having paid dues to a French port and railway and having taken that business from Britain's maritime industry. This is a long-term disaster for Britain's maritime industry.
The British Ports Association has predicted that as many as 40 per cent. of the 175,000 jobs that it created in our maritime industry could be put seriously at risk by this development. The French are ready to seize it, and that is why they are modernising ports on their present scale, why they are quickly linking their railways with high-speed electrification to the ports, and why they have such enthusiasm for this project. It is a shift in the balance of power from our maritime industry to their maritime and rail industries.

Mr. Speed: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. In intervening, I am cutting out the need to make a speech. If my hon. Friend thinks positively, does he feel that it is possible that Liverpool and Avonmouth could handle the transatlantic trade and that all the freight could pass through those ports to Europe via the Channel tunnel? Why should the French be the only ones with initiative when we have the geographical advantages?

Mr. Aitken: The simple reason is that we have not invested in a high-speed rail network of the type in which the French have invested. It is the triumph of hope over experience to think that the French, who are ready for this challenge—

Mr. Speed: In seven years' time.

Mr. Aitken: If my hon. Friend can persuade the Government to invest huge sums of money in the rail network and port modernisation on the French scale, that might be a different story, but we are unprepared for the coming battle and will therefore lose it.
There is something much deeper about this project, which is to do with French intentions. The French are sometimes our enemies, always our rivals and only occasionally our friends. Of course, it is one of the cardinal principles of modern mealy-mouthed policy in Britain that we should never say anything detrimental about the French because they are our so-called partners in the EEC. However, British public opinion marches to a different drumbeat from the insipid civilities of diplomacy.
In a week in which the French Government have behaved with a perfidy and poltroonery over Syrian terrorism, which led The Wall Street Journal to label them, rightly, as the "Euro-cowards", it is as well to examine the roots of the Anglo-French entente cordiale, of which the Channel tunnel is the new and shining symbol. Last month the French completely failed to support the Government's stand against proven state-sponsored Syrian terrorism. France's contribution to our dangers and difficulties was first a statement from the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Charles Pasqua, that there was "real collaboration" between French and Syrian intelligence to fight terrorism. France has continued its negotiations to deliver a £200 million arms sale to Syria, and France has refused to play any part in our efforts to get a concerted EEC response to the Syrian outrage—

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Aitken: No, I should like to finish my point.
I can do no better than quote from today's issue of Time magazine, which sums up the situation thus:
British officials were furious at the faintheartedness on the Continent … snapped one disgusted senior Thatcher aide 'Either you're in the business of anti-terrorism or you're not.—
In case you think that I am going to be irrelevent, Mr. Speaker, that is an archetypal example of the French attitude that worries me and millions of other people in this country.
Last month the French were not on Britain's side in the business of anti-terrorism, but this month they are on Britain's side in the business of Euro tunnelling. Why? The answer is that there is a gain to France to be soft on Syrian terrorism and a gain to France to be enthusiastic about the


Channel tunnel. Would that Britain had such a robust, if at times cynical, attitude to defending our national interest, at least with regard to the Channel tunnel.
Before we commit ourselves to devoting a massive amount of parliamentary time to the Channel Tunnel Bill in the next Session, let us not forget that we are not even halfway through the parliamentary process, although it seems to have been a marathon so far.
I should like to hear a Minister spell out, from the Dispatch Box, the political gains for Britain's national interest in this project. Please let us not have any more honeyed words about jobs. The Government's White Paper admits that there will be a net loss of jobs in the maritime industry. The White Paper reached that very low figure of 3,000 job losses only by suppressing the information about the jobs that would be lost in ports other than Dover and Folkestone. The British Ports Association, at the other end of the scale, predicts that 40 per cent. of the 175,000 jobs in the industry could be lost.
Let us not have any more "pep" talk about how the Channel tunnel will be invigorating and challenging for our exporters. The reverse is true. From long experience, I can say that our importers may well meet the challenge and the invigoration with greater success than our exporters have met the opposite challenge.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Before my hon. Friend is entirely captivated by the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) that we can make good any losses by shipping goods to Lyon via Liverpool, will he draw my hon. Friend's attention to what is happening to British lamb exporters, who are trying to exercise their legal rights but who are prevented from doing that by vandalism and excessive bureaucracy from the French authorities?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend has great experience in these matters and he knows only too well that the French very often win the game by breaking the rules. That is what we fear in the case of the Channel tunnel project.
I return to our national interests. The Government have one card to play. It is that some temporary jobs—about 10,000 — will be created by British construction companies and other British companies in the industrial sector from orders from the Channel tunnel if—and this is a big if—Britain's companies get their predicted share of the contracts.
But at what price? The garden of England, in environmental terms, is likely to be turned into Britain's grey and concrete land. The white cliffs of Dover are likely to become the green cliffs of Dover as a result of the spoil being deposited, by this misguided decision, at the bottom of Shakespeare cliff. There will be much environmental damage and many job losses in the maritime industry, all to create a benefit match for the French.
I am slightly exaggerating — one other group of people will benefit besides the French. They hope that they will be laughing all the way to the bank. They are the shareholders, bankers and directors of Eurotunnel. We may be decimating our maritime industry and ruining our environment, but perhaps this project will make a handful of people rich. But will it? Here we enter the realm of what I call "market forces schizophrenia". The Government have not really decided whether they are backing the project or whether they are at arm's length from the project and letting market forces decide. I resent the fact

that taxpayers' money will be used to buy some £400 million worth of new rolling stock for British Rail. I resent the fact that large sums of money will be spent on infrastructure and extra policing costs for the project. I am worried—

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with care. However, he seems to be suffering from schizophrenia. A few moments ago he was complaining that the French were investing too much in their railways. Now he is complaining bitterly about the money being made available to British Rail. I happen to think that it is not enough. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind.

Mr. Aitken: There is no schizophrenia on the other side of the Channel. The French are backing this project totally and wholeheartedly with taxpayers' money. That is not what our Government are doing. They say that this project is being decided by market forces and that they have nothing much to do with it. They say that they are simply supporting it politically and that it is all being done by private money. That is not true.
The position of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is perfectly rational. He seems to be saying that if he was at the Dispatch Box he would put the resources of the state behind this project, or at least behind the infrastructure. That is a logical position. I agree that he does not suffer from schizophrenia. However, I am afraid that the Government do. That was revealed when the Bank of England and others in high places got up to some bizarre and, quite possibly, improper activities in trying to twist arms so that Eurotunnel could totter towards the finishing line to raise the first 4 per cent. of the funds.
Is this really a free-market project? I suspect that when it comes to raising the remaining 96 per cent. of the money, in one way or another Government forces will have to come into play even more formidably than they have so far, although not necessarily on our side of the Channel. Perhaps we will decide to play the game and lose it. However, I am sure that the French—indeed, they have already done it—will put Government resources behind the tunnel. Some of the institutions which have invested in the project are backed by the French Government.
On a pure arm's-length, market-forces-assessment, this investment is a dodgy gamble. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that the first advice given by Department of Transport civil servants to the Secretary of State last year was that perhaps none of the bids to build a fixed link could be financed on a purely commercial basis. I hope that we will be able to have that advice disclosed to Parliament and the press. I also hope that the Department of Transport's own traffic forecasts will be disclosed. They are well below the self-serving and optimistic forecasts put forward by Eurotunnel in its prospectus.
We will need major debates on that prospectus and the investment that will be sold to the public. I fear that the prospectus is not far removed from a South sea bubble. Many of the figures seem to be plucked out of thin air. For example, there is the forecast, which anyone who knows the Channel ports has grave doubts about, that 67 per cent. of car holidaymakers will choose to go by the tunnel and that 89 per cent. of foot passengers will choose the


tunnel. Where do those optimistic forecasts come from? Before any private citizen is encouraged to invest money, we need a proper parliamentary debate on the subject.
There is long-term doubt about the French role. I fear that, because the French will have so much Government support, they will not just have a share of the Channel tunnel, but will be the dominant shareholder, perhaps the controlling shareholder. That is a great worry. Instead of being the Anglo-French Channel tunnel, it may become the French Channel tunnel. As I have already said, it is massively more in France's interests than our own, and the investment is likely to be heavily loaded towards French ownership rather than towards our own.
Why should Parliament be asked to deliver by this motion what the market cannot deliver, or at least is expected not to be able to deliver? Hon. Members do not have to rely on my word; they can read the Financial Times and other newspapers. Everyone knows that there are grave difficulties ahead. So far Eurotunnel has been extremely sanguine.
Many hon. Members may remember that earlier this summer Lord Pennock made an irritated outburst on "The World at One", in which he ticked off Members of Parliament. He said that if only Members of Parliament would stop mucking about with the Bill, he had banks and investors all over the world lined up and waiting to go. Yet, at the finishing post, the money was not available and Sir Nigel Broackes, the Governor of the Bank of England and others had to be called in to help.
Hon. Members are busy people. The Select Committee should at least examine the whole question of investment. Although I pay tribute to its hard work, its members seem to have been men of iron whim, completely excluding money and safety from their deliberations. I find that difficult to understand. Will the House be given an opportunity to debate the Select Committee report before the Bill goes to Standing Committee? The Select Committee has not shown the hybrid Bill procedure to be workable or fair in deciding projects of this nature. It would have been much better to have a shortened form of public inquiry and to have a proper look at the real financial credibility of the project, which is so much in doubt, and which will be in greater doubt when attempts are made to raise the remaining 96 per cent. of the money.
We are in a make-believe, Alice-in-Wonderland world. There is a lot of talk about the project, but the results are disappointing. We have a long way to go yet and I do not want to see Parliament's time wasted next Session. We must first have a much more clear-cut, concrete accurate view of the prospects, and all the evidence suggests that those prospects are still dim.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) gave us a wide and perfectly correct description, which was perhaps not to everybody's taste, of why the Channel tunnel should not be built and, rightly within the rules of order, why this particular motion should not be passed. There will be plenty of opportunity—hours and hours—next Session, assuming that the motion is passed tonight, to continue this interesting discussion of the concept and desirability of the tunnel. By then we shall have much more information with which to amuse and interest the House.
Tonight I propose to be narrow in my interpretation of the motion—I hope that the House will be duly grateful — and to stick to the motion, perhaps a little of the history of such motions and why the Government are in such an infernal hurry to pass it.
When the first carry-over hybrid Bill was proposed in the House, the then Prime Minister chose to address the House because it was considered of such importance that only the Prime Minister could do so. From Ramsay MacDonald to the Minister of State is not exactly a step up in protocol. It seems that today's Government are taking a more relaxed view of their duties. [Interruption.] Some may say that the Minister is better than Ramsay MacDonald—I do not know. That was in 1931 at the time of the so-called national Government. There were 47 Labour Members only at that time and rather a large number of Conservative Members.
The interesting point about that particular hybrid Bill was what it was. It was nothing like as large as the Channel Tunnel Bill. It was certainly a hybrid Bill because it included private interests and it sought to enlarge, not to diminish, the public sector. It was the London Passenger Transport Bill, and Mr. Ramsey MacDonald proposed that it should be carried over to the following Session.
The other point is that Ramsey MacDonald and his Whips had made the appropriate sounds beforehand and found that the House, in general, approved of the measure. There was a little concern and grumbling about it, but the Whips had done their job very well and the result was that, in 1931, there was no division and the order went through happily. In 1932, it took rather a long time for the Bill to be debated and considered and a similar motion was put before the House the following year. Hence my asking the Minister—I knew the answer to the question but he did not seem to—

Mr. David Mitchell: indicated assent.

Mr. Silkin: That is good. The Minister knows the answer now. I want his assurance that, if this motion is carried tonight and the suspension continues until the next Session, the Bill will not last another Session—whatever happens to the Government, and assuming that it is the same Government after the next Session has ended. As I have said, the London Passenger Transport Bill was carried forward for two Sessions. If the same occurred with this Bill, it would be an abuse of Parliament because there is opposition to it, whereas the London Passenger Transport Bill met no opposition. [Interruption,] If the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) wishes to intervene, I wish that he would do so. Perhaps then I would hear, because all that he is doing is mumbling at me.

Mr. David Crouch: When the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, suggested that the motion be carried forward a second time, he was suggesting it be carried forward to another Session, not another Parliament. I do not believe that that was the case.

Mr. Silkin: Ramsay MacDonald referred to a dissolution in his speech, which I was examining the other day. If the hon. Member for Canterbury were to spend a little time in the Library, he would find that it is possible —the Under-Secretary said so in his opening speech—to carry the Bill forward from one Parliament to another. The Under-Secretary said that that was done with the Channel Tunnel Bill in 1974.
I am merely trying to point out that the status of this motion and Bill is not regarded as so important to the Government that it should be introduced by the Secretary of State. Perhaps it would be wrong for the Prime Minister to introduce the Bill, although it is very much the Prime Minister's scheme—there is no question about that. The present Secretary of State for Transport inherited the scheme from his predecessor, so perhaps it would not have been a bad thing if the Prime Minister had introduced this motion.
I am trying to give the motion an importance that the Under-Secretary has not given to it. The hon. Gentleman craved our indulgence for bringing this tedious subject to us again at this particular moment. He told us that the House had talked a great deal about the Channel tunnel. He said that he did not wish to bring this motion before the House tonight, but he had to do so because we were at the end of the Session. The Under-Secretary said that nobody wants to talk about the Bill—but he is wrong. I find that more and more people wish to talk about it.
If I go into the wider questions concerning this matter, I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that I will relate it to the motion. It is perfectly true that many people, cornered sometimes on or about to go on holiday, said what a marvellous thing it would be if they could go by a tunnel and be in France in no time at all. On the whole, those who try to export our goods did not seem to be asked the same question. The question was directed to those who travel by car, and they thought of different things. Some thought of a bridge and others thought of a road tunnel.
The enthusiasm for spending £4·5 billion — at the present estimate — to get to France, if one can, five minutes earlier, seems to have evaporated. There is now a feeling that this is not the right thing for us to do and not the right thing on which to spend our money.
There is contention and controversy about the matter which did not exist with the London Passenger Transport Bill. That was illustrated by the bitter intervention made by my opponent, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), on his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. There is controversy in the Conservative ranks, let alone in the country.
In the light of that, why the hurry? Why is it so essential not to waste a single moment? The Select Committee, in its restrained fashion — because it deliberately excluded various questions from its consideration—said that time must not be wasted and that we must at all costs try to get the motion through in one Session. Many of us believe that the project will not run its full course in any event. So why the hurry? I think that the hurry is because the Government are in a corner. They are in a fix. They thought that the project would be marvellously popular, full of razzmatazz and zing. It has turned out to be a damp and sodden squib.
The Government now say that they cannot abandon the project immediately. They cannot say that they are not so interested in it that they will not give it time or that they will postpone it until the next Session because people would then say that Parliament was not playing the game. The Government say that many investors—perhaps 96 per cent. of them—are waiting to come in, so they had better encourage the poor baboons to do what they can —to come in and to make a go of it. It becomes more and more difficult to do that.
The Government now have to go to their rivals to collect a bit of money. They have to scrape it together, at

the 25th hour rather than the 24th hour. There is no great enthusiasm — in fact the reverse is true among the British public. There might be a certain amount of interest among the French and Japanese, and I have no doubt that with the Under-Secretary of State's persuasive abilities the Warsaw pact might be induced to put in a rouble or two.
Generally speaking, nobody really wants the Channel tunnel any more. Perhaps the hon. Member for Canterbury is attracted to the idea. He is a great historian and there is something historic about it. The hon. Member for Ashford, because of his containers and lorries, thinks that is is not a bad idea. He has to stick with it now because he supported it when he was a Minister. What is he to do but be consistent?

Mr. Speed: I supported a rail-only tunnel. I never, never, never supported a drive-through tunnel — nor would I. It is interesting that one of the principal people concerned with Sealink proposed just that — a drive-through tunnel — which would have been environmentally disastrous for Kent.

Mr. Silkin: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Ashford should say that. I wanted him to say it, because it shows the divisions. They are important divisions.
The Government are in a hurry — an unnecessary hurry. I believe that as the years go by they will regret that hurry.
I am sorry to keep referring to the speech by the hon. Member for Thanet, South but it was a brave and audacious speech which deserves to be remembered and considered. He talked about a South sea bubble. I totally disagree with him. A number of people made a fortune out of the South sea bubble before the shares went down in value. Compared with the Channel tunnel, the shares of the South sea bubble sound like gilt-edged securities.
I do not think that we shall have a Channel tunnel. I never believed it to be likely, but I am an optimist. I believe that it would be disastrous for the country. It would be disastrous for security, for trade and for the environment. It would mean the worst possible use of resources.
I do not believe that the Channel tunnel will happen. If the motion is passed tonight— I shall do my little best to try to stop it—all that will happen is that for a week or two the Government's and Prime Minister's faces will be saved. It will be no more than that. In the end the lunacy of the project will be clear to everyone in the country.

Mr. Peter Rees: We have had two interesting contributions from both sides of the House, replete with historical analogy. I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) into a consideration of the South sea bubble. I was impressed by the recollection of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) that fortunes were made. I believe that Sir Robert Walpole made a considerable fortune. But it is not for me to speculate on who will make or lose money out of this project. I am merely concerned on this occasion with the interests of my constituents and the impact of the Channel tunnel on them.
However, since we have been invited to go back a little in time, I hope that I may recall, for those of us who have been in the House since 1970, that this is the third Bill we have had to consider on the Channel Tunnel. The first was introduced by the Administration of my right hon. Friend


the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The second was introduced by the Administration of which the right hon. Member for Deptford was a Member. The third was introduced by this Administration. The right hon. Member for Deptford was the Chief Whip at the time of the second Bill and, therefore, presumably mobilised support for it.
The simple point on which we have to focus tonight is whether we want to proceed with the existing Bill or whether we want it withdrawn or killed off only to pave the way—my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am not right and make the Government's intention clear—for the introduction of a new Bill in the new Session.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should always get his facts correct. I was Chief Whip before he came into the House and I was sacked before he ever came into it.

Mr. Rees: I am sorry to intrude into the right hon. Gentleman's private grief. If my memory was inaccurate on the precise post which he held after the general election in 1974, at least I am accurate in recalling that he was a member of the Cabinet which commended the second Bill to the House.

Mr. Silkin: I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman would get his facts right. I was not a member of the Cabinet until six months afterwards.

Mr. Rees: At any rate, the doctrine of collective responsibility no doubt embraced the right hon. Gentleman closely and warmly. At least I am accurate on that. He cannot deny that.
The sole issue on which we are focusing is whether we want to kill off the Bill tonight and pave the way for, perhaps, a fresh Bill to be introduced in the next Session. I would find that a rather daunting prospect and I shall say precisely why. It is not because I have lost any zest for debate on this great subject. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be aeons of time in the next Session to devote ourselves to this gripping subject.
But before we play the battle through to its conclusion we must consider the interests of the people most directly affected. I must emphasise that a range of decisions, both business and personal, have been shirked because of the uncertainty created by the Bill and whether it will reach the statute book. Let me reduce the matter to a level which may even evoke a sympathetic response from the right hon. Gentleman. There are small people who are unable to sell their houses at the moment because of the uncertainty about whether the Channel tunnel and its works will cut across their gardens. We should be concerned about them and their interests before we become too enmeshed in considering the history of the South sea bubble and other such grandiose analogies.
I should like to see some certainty brought into the matter. I do not mind whether the Bill is killed off by a vote of the House or allowed to proceed by a vote of the House. I do not mind if it is killed off by those who are invited and decline to offer sufficient money to see it through. Some certainty must be brought into the matter and it would be a great pity if we caused merely a slight delay and paved the way for my long-suffering hon. Friend the Minister of

State to introduce a new Bill in the new Session. In that case we would get the worst of every world. If on Third Reading the Bill is killed, I have no doubt that that will generate a great deal of enthusiasm in certain parts of east Kent and not least in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: And in Southend.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has been remarkably consistent on a number of issues and I have no doubt that he sees this Bill, not unfairly, as a dimension in the long debate about the European Community and Britain's role in it. I do not want to prevent my hon. Friend enlarging the debate, even if he were allowed to do so.

Mr. Taylor: That is why my right hon. and learned Friend is against it.

Mr. Rees: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have made my position absolutely clear in interventions during the course of this Session. It is a matter of regret that we do not yet know the conclusions of the Select Committee. I should like to join other hon. Members in paying my tribute to the patience of the Select Committee. It had to deal with an enormous weight of evidence and it must have been a relief for the members of that Committee that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South nor I were in a position to give evidence. Our absence did not preclude our constituents and those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) from giving a great deal of pointed and powerful evidence. No doubt that evidence has been carefully sifted and we await with keen interest the conclusions that the Select Committee may have reached and may announce tomorrow.
The Select Committee was able to rise early on the first day during which it heard evidence in my constituency and was able to see at first hand the operations of the port of Dover. I hope that that made a deep impression on the Committee. Whatever its conclusions, the debate will continue into the next Session if the House so wills. A key issue is that there should be fair competition between the Channel tunnel—if the House agrees that it should go ahead — and the ferries that operate from the constituencies of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. It may be that some other hon. Friends have an interest in ensuring fair competition.
That is one of the central issues, so we must ensure that the same measure of safety is demanded of the operators of the Channel tunnel as is demanded of the ferry operators. There is also the matter of customs and immigration procedures. I understand that those will be matters for the Standing Committee and that the Select Committee was prevented by its terms of reference from going into them.
Other matters concern the environment and communications. If Dover, Folkestone and Ramsgate are to compete fairly with the tunnel, it is crucial that communications in east Kent should be thoroughly and carefully examined. I am thinking here of the railway line which joins Folkestone-Dover to Deal, Sandwich and Thanet. Perhaps understandably, British Rail was a little equivocal, a little hesitant, in its assurances about the continuation of that line into the 21st century. That is a


matter of considerable importance. Roads are also important and it is a matter of pain and regret to me that in spite of the Dover bypass and the connection from Dunkirk and Boughton to Dover, there is not a dual carriageway all the way down to the port of Dover.
As Dover is the main roll-on, roll-off port and the major passenger port of the kingdom, I think that the time has come when my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport should consider carefully whether the dualling of the A2 down to the port of Dover should not he accorded much higher priority. Beyond that, there is the question of the A20-M20 extension. I am fully aware of the sensitivities that must be considered in incorporating into the Bill an extension into the town of Dover, and any point of entry that the Department chooses—it gave us a preview of its thinking some years ago—is bound to be highly sensitive. I hope, however, that at least it will be possible to retain in the Bill the extension that takes the road round and beyond the village of Capel le Ferne. Capel has been promised a bypass for many years and the weight of traffic that will be generated by the works on the tunnel will justify the incorporation of the bypass in the Bill.
Secondly, I believe that the retention of the relevant clauses in the Bill will be an earnest or pledge to the inhabitants of Dover, especially the operators in and from the port of Dover, that they will have a proper connection to the motorway network. If there were any doubt or hesitation about that, that would be to build in a tremendous advantage for the tunnel and would put the ferry operators and port operators at Dover in an unacceptably disadvantaged position. I hope that, even at this late stage, the members of the Select Committee and the Minister of State will give due weight to that consideration.
There will be many other matters to which, with your permission. Mr. Speaker, we shall return, if the House passes the order, during the next Session. As time is short, I do not want to explore once again all the general considerations that the House should take into account in considering the Bill. I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and all those who have a direct hand in this important question that is crucial for the future of east Kent, and for my constituency in particular, will bear in mind the fundamental princple tht there should be fair competition and that nothing should be weighted in favour of the Channel tunnel against the operations of the ferries and ports of east Kent.
As I do not believe that the present cloud of uncertainty should hang over east Kent any longer, and as I should like to see the matter thrashed through to a conclusion one way or another in the next Session, I will not be joining right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches in voting against the order.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Paragraph (c) (vi) of the motion reads:
Any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to he heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition".
I am not making a facetious point in suggesting that one of the limits of the motion is that it was clearly drawn up

by a man. Several of the petitioners from my constituency are of the other sex, and several of them found it extremely difficult to put their views to the Select Committee.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, in endorsing the integrity of the members of the Select Committee. It may be that, as in other cases, some Members have more integrity than others. That will remain to be seen in due course. The reality is that, whereas the original Bill and the order say that individual persons of whatever sex are entitled to be heard, the Select Committee procedure has been such that considerable pressure has been put on the individual petitioner not to take time in putting his or her case.
Again, the Select Committee is up against difficulties. I am not suggesting that it is a matter of pressure from the Government to make sure that the business is done by a certain time or date. The Committee does not need such pressure to realise that it has many petitions with which to deal. But there is no way in which the Select Committee has fulfilled the commitment given by the then Secretary of State for Transport that the Committee's procedure would be not only as good as but better than a public inquiry. In a public inquiry, major issues such as whether a single London terminus should be the sole outlet for traffic would not have been dealt with by taking evidence on only one and a half days. This is of considerable importance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North pointed out. I am glad that he supported the case for a public inquiry into the sole use of Waterloo as an outlet for Channel tunnel traffic.
Furthermore, there is no way in which a public inquiry would have allowed a major development proposal such as the sole use of Waterloo to be made without the proposers having been called to give evidence. It is scandalous—I am sure that the Government Ministers on the Front Bench are gripped by this matter, as they are paying such close attention to it — that a Select Committee should have been given terms of reference in which neither British Rail nor Customs and Excise is called upon to set its case before the Committee.
I can illustrate that by some figures. Indirectly, through the Government's agent, we have learnt in evidence to the Select Committee that the traffic impact estimates for Waterloo given or used by British Rail assume 6 million passengers a year. However, British Rail is now talking —it depends on what day one gets it—of 15 million to 20 million passengers a year passing through Waterloo. One does not need to be a mathematical genius to see that if one takes a number, say 6 million, and trebles it as British Rail has done, and then subtracts some passengers getting off at Ashford, the result is not the 6 million on which British Rail is basing its figures for estimates of traffic congestion and the viability of traffic use around the station.
The reality is that the congestion is likely to be horrendous. The Minister kindly agreed to come to Waterloo, and he may be surprised to know that there is no special barb about to follow my thanking him on behalf of the local community for doing so. He spent more time there than the Select Committee and went round the environs of Waterloo seeing the local community and the way in which the traffic access ramps could not possibly take three-lane traffic, as is anticipated in British Rail's plan. Anybody standing outside to catch a cab at


Waterloo, or coming out of Waterloo East, should face the fact that British Rail is proposing three-lane traffic in that area without widening the road.
Ministers of both parties and Back-Bench Members have stressed that nobody has a magic formula for reversing inner-city decline and stemming the crisis into which the inner city has fallen. After seeing the area, the local community, the housing, and the efforts made by the community to make this part of the inner city flourish, the Minister told a television programme that he had learnt a great deal. He said that he had not appreciated just how many new housing and community projects there were in the area, and that British Rail had a case to answer on the traffic impact and about dispersal of traffic, and whether there should be a single flagship terminal.
I welcome the fact that the Minister was able to say that. However, such issues are not being addressed by the Select Committee. It is not clear to me, as the hon. Member who represents the Vauxhall constituency, just when these issues will be properly addressed. Nor is it clear, I regret to say, whether the Department of Transport has any clear idea what the total traffic impact on the south bank is likely to be of another 20 million passengers a year and an estimated 4 million vehicles a year coming into or going out of Waterloo.
The proposal has now been made by London Regional Transport that the National Bus Company terminal should be moved from Victoria station, where its lease from Grosvenor Estates is running out, to either of two sites in London, one of which is at Vauxhall bridge. This is relevant to the entire matter of the commercial viability of the Channel tunnel project. British Rail has been challenged on where the traffic coming out of Waterloo will go.
Will the bus tour operators be linking up with the rail link? Will the traffic go across Westminster bridge and Waterloo bridge into central London? "Oh no," British Rail said. "It will be using the south bank and embankment routes and going either west or north across Chelsea bridge or Albert bridge." That could be tremendous if we were considering only buses coming out of Waterloo, but the problem is that the traffic may now, run into another 240 buses an hour going into or coming out of the new National Bus Company terminal at the Vauxhall Cross intersection.
I have tabled questions to Ministers on this—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: This is the first proposal that I have heard that will have such a strategic impact on London. It is a pity that we do not have a strategic planning authority to assess it. The idea of a National Bus Company terminal at Vauxhall is surprising and almost inconceivable.

Mr. Holland: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I must say that not only I, but many in the local community were staggered to find that, of the range of possible sites being considered, only in the past few weeks has London Regional Transport come to consider Vauxhall as one of its two main options; and, taking its hint from the way that the role of public inquiries has been downgraded by the Government's handling of the Channel tunnel issue, LRT gave notice only a few weeks ago that evidence from the local community supporting or protesting against the proposal had to be in by the end of

October. That meant that the local authority—in this case Lambeth — could not even consider the new proposal in any detail. It had no details of the new proposal that it could submit in time to its normal monthly planning committee. Lambeth therefore has not been in a position to give proper evidence.
That is directly relevant to Waterloo. British Rail wants to get away with traffic congestion figures based on 6 million passengers, when it is now talking about 20 million. Indeed, 20 million passengers could be critical to the commercial viability of the project. It is not at all apparent that the road network on the south bank can take either the additional traffic from a London bus terminal at Vauxhall Cross or the additional traffic at Waterloo. It certainly cannot take both.
In that context, I put it to the House that the case for a public inquiry into the Waterloo issue, as there may or may not be recommendations for public inquiries involving other road networks associated with the Channel tunnel project, is evidenced by this simple fact. The traffic throughput at Waterloo with a 20 million passenger flow would be equivalent to one jumbo jet entering or leaving Waterloo station every three and a half minutes. The total passenger flow at Waterloo would be equivalent to that at Gatwick airport.
Is it conceivable that a new airport or traffic flows of that kind, would be accepted by Parliament without proper and due scrutiny? Instead, the matter was considered for two and a half days, including the evidence that was put to the Select Committee both by local community groups and by Lambeth council. It is essential that these issues are considered not only by a Standing Committee, which would face similar pressures to those that were faced by the Select Committee, but by a public inquiry.
Furthermore, British Rail is not being called to give evidence to the Select Committee. I referred to this yesterday at Question Time. An article in the New Civil Engineer of 30 October said that, according to British Rail market analyst Ken Gibbs, British Rail is planning a new —it is called top secret—Channel rail link to get a fast rail service from the coast to London. In his reply to my question yesterday the Minister said that he knew
of no authoritative suggestion that there should be a new rail line from the coast to Victoria". — [Official Report, 3 November 1986: Vol. 103, c. 671.]
That lets the Minister off the hook on two grounds. First, the decision about what is or is not authoritative is entirely subjective. The Minister can decide that something carries authority and that something else does not. Tonight we want to know whether it has come to his attention that any proposal has been made by anybody regarding such a link. Secondly, we want to know whether it has been considered, as Ken Gibbs is alleged to have said, by British Rail. Furthermore, we need to know its implications for the Channel tunnel project, especially the case for dispersal and the case for the use of Waterloo, rather than Victoria, as a flagship terminal.
I quote from the New Civil Engineer, the magazine of the Institute of Civil Engineers. It says that Mr. Gibbs apparently
declined to reveal details of BR's plans to deal with the shortfall in capacity but it is understood a new line would leave the London-Dover line near Paddock Wood, pass to the east of the hillside village of Ightham and either travel along


the M25 corridor before rejoining the main line north of Sevenoaks or continue due north joining the Rochester main line near Swanley.
I do not know what Conservative Members feel about such a new rail line proposal, which has implications for a least some of their constituents.
No evidence has been given by British Rail to the Select Committee because British Rail is not being called upon to give evidence to it. However, the implication — I quote from this article in the New Civil Engineer of only a few days ago—is:
This latter option gives the possibility of routing Chunnel traffic into Victoria station, relieving the anticipated pressure of 20 million passengers per year at Waterloo by the turn of the century.
Officially, British Rail and Eurotunnel are denying the existence of these plans. However, observers have commented:
BR would do well to hide high speed plans until the Channel tunnel is built. If the tunnel was in place and the network seen to be patently inadequate, then the argument for the new railway would be clear. To publicly acknowledge the need for it before work on the fixed link had even begun would risk an embarrassing public row … Few forget that public outcry over a similar plan in 1974 helped scotch the previous Chunnel venture.
Whether or not one supports or opposes a fixed rail link, these are matters to which hon. Members as well as the Select Committee have a right to answers now from the Government.
If we are to take the Select Committee and Standing Committee procedure seriously, and whether we are to vote for or against this order tonight, hon. Members need to know what is in the pipeline and what is being considered. It is alleged that this new rail link will be privately financed and privately operated. That might appeal to Conservative Members. They will not be surprised to hear that it does not appeal to me. In the same way a further issue arises, because British Rail has apparently admitted to that magazine, although not to the House, that at peak times, with commuter traffic coming into Waterloo, it will not be able to accommodate more than two trains an hour, whereas it needs four trains an hour for commercial viability. The Minister should answer those questions tonight.
I have another point that will no doubt enthral the House. At some time or another most of us have played with trains, and know that with a single track and a loop, or even two tracks, the problem of how a fast train is to pass a slower train arises. No wonder British Rail wants an entirely new fixed system. If the project is to be commercially viable, the trains must run on time. Someone

somewhere else once said that the trains had to run on time, and would do so. It is interesting that in his analysis of Fascist Italy, Dennis Mack Smith considered Mussolini's claim that the trains ran on time. He found that by and large the inter-city trains ran on time, but that as the track was inadequate, any local passenger train or goods train in the way was shunted off the main line. Indeed, freight was lost for weeks and months in Italy in the 1930s. I am glad that that brings at least half a smile to the faces of some Conservative Members.
What will happen to traffic, including commuter traffic, in the south-east of England if Channel tunnel trains are to run on time, on inadequate track? Their dictates will be fulfilled and commuter traffic will be pushed out of the way. Happily, I am not suggesting that a commuter train will be lost, never to be found again, as apparently happened to the local freight traffic in Italy, but commuters will be pushed out of the way in other ways. Their services will he slower, and will be disrupted. Commuters will obtain a second-class service because of the imperatives of the link.
Those issues should be addressed in the Bill. What rights will the private operators of such a new rail link have? Who will take the decision on the priority allocation of trains? Are the Government going to back the tunnel operators and give them a commitment that they will have priority in the use of lines? Will there be a new private line?
I am well aware that several Conservative Members wish to speak, and there will no doubt be a sigh of relief when I say that I am about to conclude my speech. But I have this to add. The Secretary of State is supposed to be a serious politician. That may come as a surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), but the Secretary of State is supposed to be on his way up within the Conservative party. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber, but no doubt he will return shortly. Indeed, we even heard recently that he is a possible contender in due course for the leadership. Consequently, I suggest that the Minister should get a message through to the Secretary of State.
If the Secretary of State endorses such a crass muddle over the impact of local traffic, he will not make any positive reputation for himself in the House, but he will become known as the man who made the biggest planning bungle of the 20th century. That would be bad for travellers on the Channel fixed link, bad for commuters and bad finance. If the Government had any sense, they would come clean about the matter, put the issues to the House and hold a public inquiry to enable them to be properly considered.

Mr. David Crouch: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). I certainly hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench also listened to him carefully, because he spoke about a major problem that has been thrown up by the Channel tunnel project. I refer to the arrival and departure of passengers at the London terminal. It is important and right that the hon. Gentleman should raise that matter. His is the one voice in the House that speaks of this problem in his constituency. It is quite right that he should. I am interested in his comments.
We are considering a motion to suspend consideration of this Bill and to take it into the next Session of Parliament. The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) have been attacked by other hon. Members before. I have great admiration for my hon. Friend, but I do not understand why he should be against the Channel tunnel. It certainly does not serve his constituents to speak as he does. I suggest that my hon. Friend is against the French, the Common Market and the Community. I suggest that that underlies everything that he has said tonight and on many occasions in the House, in public, in the press and in articles that he has written which express his opinion so strongly, so dramatically and so passionately against this fixed link. He disclosed tonight in his speech, to which we listened with interest — we must listen because he is a highly intelligent man who serves his constituents and Parliament well—the reasons why, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), he is passionately against Europe. Okay, it is quite true.

Mr. Aitken: rose—

Mr. Crouch: If I may develop this point, I shall then willingly give way.
We are discussing whether to consider the Channel Tunnel Bill — the fixed link from this country to the continent of Europe—in the next Session of Parliament. I happen to be in favour of it—not that my constituents are in favour of it—because I believe it is in favour of Great Britain and its economic, social and future development. I could be wrong, so could the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the present Secretary of State for Transport and successive Secretaries of State for Transport.
There is another view—that it is not right to have a fixed link and it is a disadvantage. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) does not believe it would be to our economic advantage. He has honourably and strongly held the view over many years that he is not in favour of our membership of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Aitken: I know that my hon. Friend would not wish to misrepresent my motives. I have spoken so often about the Channel tunnel that I cannot always repeat everything on every single occasion I speak. I am against the Channel tunnel on national grounds, for the reasons outlined tonight and on other occasions. On local grounds, I have a very strong constituency reason, strongly supported by my constituents. The reason is that Ramsgate is Britain's second biggest Channel port. It is

highly vulnerable to a loss of business of the kind that the Channel tunnel is almost certain to provide. For that reason alone, I assure my hon. Friend that my stand is highly popular in my constituency, and that is a very good local motive.

Mr. Crouch: It is not for me to question how my hon. Friend's constituents view the matter. He is the judge of that. He knows how his constituency views it. I am sure he is popular, but I think he is wrong. I do not think there are many in this country who agree with him. He said the idea of this fixed link — this Channel tunnel — was a question of monumentitis and that is why it is being done.
There is another voice echoing in the House tonight. It comes from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and it is a typical voice. My hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and for Thanet, South are typical. They do not want to see any monument to any progress. They used a phrase which I shall use against them. They do not want to see progress or achievement. They do not want to be 19th century entrepreneurs. They want to be 20th century backward thinkers. I say that with all the passion I can command, because I believe in the future of our country. Few of us seem to have the guts to believe in the future of this country — much better to close the door, lift the drawbridge and say, "Let us be little Englanders." If ever there were a little Englander in the House, it is the right hon. Member for Deptford. Of course, he is honourable—little Englanders can be quite honourable—but he is such a person.

Mr. Silkin: I am a large Commonwealther.

Mr. Crouch: When the right hon. Gentleman talks of the Commonwealth, I cannot help but think that perhaps in my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South there lingers, even for family reasons, a longing for what was once called empire and for what the right hon. Member for Deptford calls Commonwealth. I give no ground to anyone in my belief in the Commonwealth, but I believe also in our links with Europe.
It is right to debate the Bill in the next Session, because it needs further consideration. The hon. Member for Vauxhall has told us that further consideration of the London content and problem is needed, and I agree with him. Many environmental problems in Kent need further consideration in the House and in the other place. More time should be given to them. That is why I agree with this motion.
I do not want to be too unkind in criticising hon. Members because their views differ from mine. If one raises one's voice in passion, that is the custom of the House and it is encouraged by the House. Whether one wants that or not, it cannot be helped. One raises one's voice because one believes in one's view, and one may be wrong. As I have said before in talking about this project, many of my constituents think that I am wrong. Perhaps I am wrong, but perhaps not. I am not saying this just to support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That has not been my wont. I have done what I have thought to be right for the country. I think that this project is right for the country.
We all know that our export market is in Europe, with more than 60 per cent. of our exports going there. Some purists would say that those are not exports and that we are all in one market—a home market. It is a colossal home market, but the fact is that more than 60 per cent.


of the exports which earn us our wealth cross the Channel by an inefficient means, relying on ship transport. I do not accept that relying on shipping alone is sufficient but I accept that a direct rail link from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, London—

Mr. Silkin: Aberdeen.

Mr. Crouch: Of course, I am talking of an electric rail link under the Channel to Paris, Brussels, Milan and Frankfurt. That is the way for this country to grow and, perhaps for the first time, to enjoy the benefits of being in the much larger market of 400 million people which is called the European Community.
This matter needs more consideration. We must not rush that. No one can accuse the Government of having rushed it, but perhaps there is something in Labour Members' statement, which they have advanced so consistently, that it would be better to have a public inquiry lasting a year or more. That is democracy at work. I believe that consultation with the public and the public's presentation of their views to Members of Parliament through a Select Committee are not bad ways in a modern system for people to have their voices heard right up to the very fount—the Minister. When parliamentarians report to the Minister, it is better than when an inspector reports.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said earlier. But surely there is a mean between a public inquiry which may take a year and giving evidence by the local community in a day and a half. That is what is wrong and why the local community cannot be heard.

Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman has reminded me of something that he said which I thought was perhaps the most telling thing said tonight. He said— and I must accept that this is right as no hon. Member contradicted him—that only a day and a half had been given for the consideration of the important question of what effect the project would have on the traffic environment in London. That is very important. Much more time should be given to that question. Heaven knows, it is difficult enough to do anything in a crowded city like London, and that point deserves a great deal of thought and consideration. I concede that point.
I criticise my hon. Friends and others, but perhaps I am being unfair. If I am, may I be unfair to all the British people? What has happened to the British people today? How different they are from what they were 150 years ago when Stephenson invented the railway. We built the railways in this and so many other countries in the world. We did not stumble or hesitate; we did it. We built the Severn tunnel and we did not stumble or hesitate. It took 14 days of explanation in Committee to get the Severn tunnel project through the House. Engineers argued their case and were heard in departmental Select Committees. So many Select Committees had to hear those cases 140 to 150 years ago. Last century Parliament was not only busy but brave and prepared to take decisions. We were not little Englanders in the 19th century. We were guilty of many other crimes and we created colossal industrial slums and degradation for part of our country as we developed our industrial revolution—we must not do that again — but we made decisions and got on with things. We became rich and great and the most powerful

nation in the world because we had the courage in this House of Commons and Parliament to make decisions, and the British people were behind us.
It can be argued that the British people in those days did not enjoy the full franchise of parliamentary democracy as we enjoy it today, so decision making is slower now because we have to consult more people and take more time about it. However, whereas they were not frightened last century, we are frightened today. People are frightened and they complain.
What are we afraid of as we contemplate these great projects like the Channel tunnel—the biggest engineering project in the history of Europe? Are we afraid of competition? Are we afraid of being swamped by the French? We used not to be afraid of the French.

Mr. Silkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Crouch: Of course, but the right hon. Gentleman is interrupting a splendid flow.

Mr. Silkin: Was it not Lord Randolph Churchill who killed the Channel tunnel project in the 1880s?

Mr. Crouch: Yes, it was.

Mr. David Mitchell: My hon. Friend will recall that, while Lord Randolph Churchill condemned the project, his son supported it.

Mr. Crouch: Yes, it is very interesting. In fact. Lord Randolph Churchill's great grandson today tells me that his father-in-law was one of the fathers of the idea of the Channel tunnel, whereas his great grandfather, Lord Randolph Churchill, was one of those who opposed it. lit is interesting to see how thinking develops within a family, let alone within a Parliament.
One of the worst things that can happen in making a speech is to be sidetracked into the glorious avenues of history. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Deptford for not going further up that avenue.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said some nasty and unkind things earlier in his speech. Would he at least have the humility to accept that, just because a scheme is big and imaginative and attracts a lot of headlines and little coloured pamphlets, it is not necessarily sound or a sensible use of public money? Does he not realise that the British public are getting a little upset about schemes such as De Lorean and Concorde, which were big and imaginative but which wasted a lot of money which could have been better spent in other ways?

Mr. Crouch: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am being unkind to him. I am performing in the House as he performs when he advances his views so strongly against our membership of the European Community. He is entitled to those views, just as I am entitled to mine.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: One must be humble.

Mr. Crouch: I will show as much humility as I can, and I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's stricture to do so.
Are the British people afraid of change? It is a terrible indictment if they are. If they are, then it is up to the House to give them the leadership and encouragement not to be afraid of change—or of Concorde. They must not be afraid of a great advance in aerospace technology. I accept that Concorde may not have been a great economic


success because its research and development was paid for by the Government. However, it has broken through not just the sound barrier, but a barrier which shows that there is a future for supersonic aircraft for passenger travel. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. Concorde did cost money, but successive Governments, supported by the French encouraged it.
Are we afraid of competition and change or are we afraid of the challenge of change and competition? It seems so to me at times. I can understand the people of Kent being opposed to the tunnel, because they tell me so. It will change a part of Kent considerably. It will change Folkestone—the Shepway constituency. It will change Cheriton, Newington and Peen dramatically. Perhaps Newington and Peen will disappear under the marshalling yards at the entrance to the tunnel. I am looking for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) because the tunnel will also change Dover. It will change the traffic pattern to that town. Ashford will grow bigger and richer and more jobs will be created there. It will change Ramsgate. I believe that that port will grow in importance alongside the fixed link at Folkestone. I could be wrong. I believe that there is a need for an ancillary service to the continent by large economic ferry ships. However, the tunnel will not change my constituency of Canterbury, although people think it will. Two million tourists and pilgrims come to Canterbury every year, and they will still be coming, perhaps even more.
The tunnel will change the pattern in Kent. Most of it will be attracted to the M20 that will feed the tunnel. That will be better for Kent's environment. It will funnel the massive amount of traffic, domestic cars and lorries going to join the tunnel on to one road. It will be an advantage to have the traffic on one road rather than as at present spread across so many different roads to so many different ports in Kent. I can understand the people in east Kent being anxious and angry — they are angry — at the prospect of this change to their environment and the way they live today. Kent is an area for living or even retiring, not so much for earning a living. It is called the garden of England. It is a beautiful area. I live there myself and I shall go on living there even when the tunnel is built.
There may not be an advantage to the people who live around the tunnel entrance, at least not as they enjoy life today. Future generations may take a different view. Our children and grandchildren who will continue to live there may like the jobs and modern, high standard of living that will develop. Folkestone may not remain a retirement town; it may become a bustling, exciting link town with the continent.
Whatever the people of east Kent or Kent as a whole think, theirs is not the only voice to be heard in Britain on this massive decision. Some in the north-east, north-west, south Wales and Scotland, all of whom have spoken in the House, do not want the fixed link because, they say, it will make Kent prosperous at their expense — part of the golden triangle in the south-east. Others believe that Britain needs a fixed link as we now have the biggest, fastest growing export market in the world. The Government must take note of all those voices and strongly held views.
The Government must listen to my hon. Friends who disagree with the project because there is something in all the arguments. They must not be ignored, and their views

must be taken into account. The Government and Parliament have a duty to heed them. That is why we need time. The Government must act in Britain's best interests, advance our economy, protect our environment and spread the work opportunity across the country. Those factors are all equally important. In the past 15 years the great industrial development in the North sea has been spread across our engineering bases in England and Scotland.
The Government have a duty to explain their case and to put forward the advantages in contrast with the disadvantages voiced so eloquently by others. They must be more eloquent in advising the public, particularly those who see disadvantages, of the genuine advantages of this fixed link. The Government have a duty to promise that they will protect the environment. That is what Kent needs above all and what it is so worried about. In all those matters I want the Government to have more time so that they can carry the great majority of the people with them on a great project of great advantage to the country.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In some ways it is appropriate that I follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who referred to the old pilgrimage trail. The western half of my constituency is the ancient borough of Southwark. It was from Southwark to Canterbury and vice versa that pilgrims, first for matters spiritual and later for matters more mercenary, went down what is now the A2, which starts at London bridge and goes to Dover. Halfway through my constituency there is a sign to Dover and Folkestone, 72 miles away.
I have a small part of the London end of this project in my constituency, as the western edge of my constituency includes part of Waterloo. Although it is proper that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), who represents the northern third of Lambeth, speaks principally for that larger community, my constituents in the northern third of Southwark have as great an interest.
It was always clear that this Bill—unusual in nature, a hybrid Bill—with its Select Committee and Standing Committee, and its passage to the House of Lords, would be the subject of a motion such as this. The motion is not surprising given the debates that we had at the beginning of the current Session. The question which still remains to be answered — I remind the Minister that he has not answered the question put by my other parliamentary neighbour, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin)— is why this is not a Sessional Order as opposed to a Standing Order of the House. If the Government envisage that they will only 1'1'00 the forthcoming Session of Parliament to complete their procedural work, they only need an order covering that one Session. Something that is put into the Standing Orders, as the right hon. Member for Deptford said, remains part of the Standing Orders of the House until repealed. I should be interested to hear why the last clause is in the motion.
I welcome the fact that the motion recognises that it is not for the House collectively, or for the Government, to put pressure on the Select Committee. It is no secret that the Select Committee has been deliberating again today and, having completed its evidence only a matter of days ago, is likely to announce its conclusions tomorrow. It is right that the Committee should not be put under any further pressure. If, for any reason, the Committee is able


to announce only part of its conclusions and further work is needed, it is proper that it should be given that time. It is the procedures as opposed to the principles of the Bill that are my greatest concern as a Member representing the interests of my constituents as well as the interests of my party.
When legislation comes before the House, there is always a dilemma as to how the timetabling should work. It is regarded as a weapon of opposition that one can hold up Government business. The weapon of a Government with a sufficient majority is that they bring in a guillotine motion which is passed unless there is a sufficient internal rebellion. I hope that the Government, once the Select Committee has completed its task, will not try to railroad through the debates which will be necessary in the Standing Committee of this House or in the Committee of the other place.
It is right that proper debate takes place. It may be possible to agree on a timetable from the start of proceedings but that is the perennial question that arises when the first clauses are contemplated in detail but are followed by a rush of debate and a guillotine at the end. The way in which the interested parties will proceed depends upon adequate time being made available after the completion of the order and its passage.
I have two worries which I wish to express on behalf of my constituents who live just over Westminster bridge on the south bank—they are partly procedural and partly substantive. The Bill makes it clear that Waterloo will be the terminal in London. It is clear from the evidence that ten years ago Waterloo was not contemplated as the terminal in London,. When the predecessor to this Bill was before the House there were 10 suggested termini and Waterloo was not one of them.
It is not abundantly clear why Waterloo should be the terminus. Clearly there are two Southern region stations of substance — Victoria and Waterloo. One might include Blackfriars, which has a claim, or London Bridge. A terminus was suggested at King's Cross using the Snow Hill link. A terminus at docklands was also suggested.
Why has British Rail not been asked to put its case? Why was the consideration of Waterloo as the terminus to cope with such a massive influx of people specifically excluded from the Select Committee's deliberations? That Committee worked as hard as anybody could have asked any Select Committee to work. The hon. Member for Vauxhall is right. We are talking about 20 million people, not 6 million — phenomenal crowds. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said, we have had difficulties enough coping with crowds on the accesses to the Channel ports for centuries. To allow a massive new influx without permitting any argument is unacceptable.
We must have something from the Minister tonight to put at rest the valid fears of communities which inevitably are always under threat in the intense metropolitan life of an inner city, particularly in the capital. He knows about development sites. He has seen the pressures and the efforts being made to hold communities together because of the incursion of office blocks and traffic. He knows the projections for vehicular traffic up to the end of the century. He knows the practical difficulties that already exist.
We are always complaining about buses and coaches parked on Westminster bridge and about colleagues being delayed access to the House for Divisions because of traffic congestion. There is regular trouble on the other

side of the river—not only at rush hours—outside the Department of Education and Science, along York road, around Waterloo station, along Waterloo road and Westminster bridge road, and along the Embankment to Vauxhall cross, which is a major and congested intersection.
It is imperative that fears about traffic flows and traffic management are allayed properly by proper investigation and inquiry. It is not sufficient to say that there will be no opportunity for the problems to be explored. If the problems were not attached to the Channel Tunnel Bill, they would be the subject of a public inquiry. If we cannot have a public inquiry — I accept the outcome of the debate — we must do something to ensure that the problems are examined.
The London evidence took only two and a half days in the Select Committee last month. The development of a terminus for international rail traffic in London merits much more than that. We must have some assurance that the Government will allow the arguments to be expressed.
The major anxiety is traffic — the handling of passenger traffic, the ancillary traffic and the works in the schedule. There is a knock-on—perhaps knockdown—concern about what will happen as a result of the development. I think of housing implications, social services and accommodation. Housing, and the space to go with it, is immensely important.
I do not underestimate the importance of the problems worrying people in the Kent villages and on the coast. Communities are at stake in both places. The Minister must know from the record number of petitions and petitioners that communities at both ends are unhappy.
The Government have one more year in which to remedy that unhappiness. I do not want to argue about whether the project will go ahead or whether the City will come up with the money—that is for other people and other places. But the Bill has several stages yet, here and in another place. The Minister must try to find mechanisms so that those who have been prevented from asking questions and having them answered, about transport primarily, but also about housing, open space and land and other community issues, are given the opportunity to put their case.
I am, above all, like every other hon. Member, sent here to represent my constituents. The way in which, and the ease and co-operation with which, the Government will be assisted in the remaining stages of the Bill depend on the Minister giving a sympathetic and positive response to the anxieties, strongly put by my neighbours on both sides, irrespective of political difference and shared by people who have equal community concerns in Kent. I hope that the Minister will be positive.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made an all too typically Liberal speech, elaborately sitting on the fence and refusing to come down on either side. He reminded me of the statement, "These are my principles and if you do not like them I have some others which may suit you better."
Having said that, I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), raised important points regarding the London part of this business. I am rather persuaded by what both said that these matters have not received the consideration


that they deserve. It is no argument against the motion but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have taken on board the genuine anxiety felt on both sides of the House that these matters require careful consideration.
I intend to be brief. I shall be a great deal briefer than my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and I shall be a great deal less charitable than he was about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I am sorry to see that he is not in the Chamber and if I waffle for a minute or two he may return. I intend to criticise severely the unworthy and distasteful speech that he made in opening the debate from the Back Benches this evening.
No doubt the speech will get the publicity that it deserves. That is to say, it will get the headlines in The Sun. But this is a responsible legislative Chamber and I ask all hon. Members, whether they are for the project or against it, what conveivable useful purpose is served by trying to whip up hatred against our allies and our French partners. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend has returned to the Chamber because I can now repeat what I have said, which was that I found his speech unworthy and distasteful.

Mr. Aitken: I would not have expected anything less of my hon. Friend.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am glad to have fulfilled my hon. Friend's expectations.
What conceivable useful purpose is served in trying to whip up hatred against the French? We have to work with them. They are our partners in the European Community. If we fall out, things will go badly for both of us.

Mr. Aitken: What about Syria?

Sir Anthony Meyer: There my hon. Friend goes again, spreading stories, which turn out to be untrue, that the French are about to embark on a great arms deal with Syria.
The Eurotunnel project, which of course raises doubts and anxieties, will bring great benefits to both our countries, as well as to a great many other countries besides, unless we fall to squabbling about which of the two will derive the greater share of the benefit. There is a doctrine which seems to be alien to the thinking of my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and others who think like him, and that is the idea that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. If both sides work together on a project, the total good that can be achieved for both of them can be greater than what each of them puts into it.
I should like to make one contribution to the argument about which side derives the greater benefit. This tunnel will extend the continental railway system by some 400 miles, but it will extend the British railway system by 1,500 miles or more. My constituency depends very much on the continued viability of the British railway system. Like a great many people in peripheral areas, my constituents readily accept the argument that the construction of this tunnel will do almost more than anything else to put British Rail on a viable course. Because my constituents depend to a large extent on British Rail for their continued prosperity, this project is undoubtedly good news for them.
There is an uncovenanted benefit from this project, although it is one upon which I do not want to dwell. It

is that British rolling stock will be able to travel freely all over the continental rail system, but continental rolling stock will find considerable difficulty in negotiating our tighter curves, closer lines and smaller tunnels. By cheating, we seem in that case to be making a net gain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South made the worst of a bad case, especially when he alleged that the Eurotunnel promoters were having great difficulty in raising the money. He is evidently disappointed that they have succeeded in raising the money that they set out to raise. But it would not be surprising if there were difficulties in raising money, because people who put up money for such a project are not to know that my hon. Friend and those who think like him are an insignificant minority in the House, as will be evident in the vote. For all that prospective investors know, 600 hon. Members may think like my hon. Friend and prefer to dwell on the difficulties, the obstacles, the disadvantages and the drawbacks, and think that Britain will be the loser, that we will be taken for a ride and that we are the suckers in all this.
It is a miracle that any measure can get through the parliamentary labyrinth nowadays. If one combines the parliamentary obstacles that have always existed with the growing national worship of failure, exemplified in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, it is amazing that anything is ever done in Britain. The order that we are debating is an ingredient in enabling such a miracle to be brought about, and I have no hesitation in supporting it.

Dr. Roger Gale: The anxieties of my constituents have been expressed in hundreds of words to the Select Committee, and I should like to pay tribute, if not to what the Committee is likely to say in its report — I cannot prejudge that — to the Committee for the way in which it has received those words of my constituents. Apart from the more esoteric concerns, the anxieties in north-east Kent boil down to a couple of simple issues. My constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) live behind the tunnel door. They see the prospect of a fixed link not as a job creator, but as the north-east Kent bypass.
My constituents are surrounded by a poor road infrastructure and they see the French Government pouring money into the infrastructure in the Pas de Calais. They have no incentive to offer like the incentive offered by the French in the Pas de Calais. Until fairly recently they had no cause to believe that their worries were not well justified. During the summer recess my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport and the Under-Secretary of State for Employment with responsibility for tourism and more recently my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry visited north-east Kent. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry in an interview with the Thanet Extra, one of our local papers, said that
he was convinced that better roads into the area were necessary before assistance could be given.
In the Isle of Thanet Gazette he is reported as saying:
Firms are unlikely to invest in Thanet unless road and rail links are improved because at the moment lorries cannot get in and out.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State is right.
My hon. Friend kindly visited Thanet early on Sunday, and I place on record my thanks, and those of my constituents, for the courtesy and sympathy with which he viewed our problems. I would not wish to suggest that the Thanet way is the modern equivalent of the road to Damascus, but anyone who travels in the middle of the road over Roman Galley hill comes perilously close to his maker. My hon. Friend was kind enough to acknowledge upon his departure that he had learnt a great deal from his visit.
As a result of my hon. Friend's visit, Kent county council has submitted a three-phase plan for the improvement of the entire Thanet way. It has also submitted an application for Government support. I would like to hope and believe that that support might be forthcoming. I would like also to hope that Thanet's claims for intermediate status, or the establishment of an enterprise zone, might be heeded. If we are to realise the potential of north-east Kent, there must be a concerted effort by the Departments of Transport, Employment, the Environment and Trade and Industry, together with the Kent county council. That will be necessary with or without the prospect of a fixed link.
The port of Ramsgate, which employs many of my constituents, has deposited exciting plans for its development and I hope and believe that it can succeed. The operators of what is becoming known as Kent international airport at Manston have exciting plans as well, and I believe that they can succeed. We can attract industry and I believe that we can compete with the French, but if we are to do so it must be on equal terms.
Only today I attended the launch of a major computer and electronics initiative. The research and development for the project has been carried out in my constituency. The manufacturing that will follow will be located where? Will it be in Thanet, Kent or northern France? There is a major — I hesitate to say "national" —company that next month will be holding a reception at the Ritz hotel, to which 100 bankers have been invited. This has been done to attract investment in industrial development. Is this development to take place in Kent or in England? The answer is no. It is to take place in northern France. It is recognised that the attractions and facilities in northern France are better than those provided in the United Kingdom.
It may surprise my Whips and some of my colleagues when I say that I shall support the carry-over motion. That is not because I have become converted suddenly to the attractions of the Channel tunnel. I shall do so because the House demonstrated on Second Reading its wish that the debate should continue. I believe that there is a great deal more to be said and that there may be a great deal more to oppose. I would like to think that we can make progress in this matter and I shall support the motion.

Mr. Roger Moate: I may surprise the Government Whips and some of my hon. Friends when I say that, although I am an opponent of the project, I shall support the carry-over motion. It is essentially a procedural matter, but that does not minimise its importance. If the House passes a carry-over motion, it is according a privilege to the promoters of a Bill that should only rarely be granted. I shall demonstrate that by suggesting to all my hon. Friends how horrified they

would be if the Government were to bring forward straightforward Government legislation and suggest that that should be carried over.
There would be horror at such a constitutional outrage, because the ability to ensure that legislation is dropped at the end of a parliamentary year is the fundamental strength not just of the Opposition but of Parliament over the Excutive. Therefore, the carry-over provision is remarkable. The House rightly recognises that we have to give the promoters of private legislation that right to carryover; otherwise there would be gross injustice to those who had expended a great deal of time and money in a quasi-judicial manner in bringing their case before the House.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I know that it is the accepted doctrine, but does my hon. Friend really think that it is such a valuable ingredient in the preservation of democracy that uncompleted legislation should fall at the end of every Session? It is rather akin to the Treasury being unable to think for more than one year at a time.

Mr. Moate: That is a matter of great debate. I should have thought that the vast majority of the House would agree that to remove that power of Parliament over the Executive would deliver such power to the Executive that parliamentarians would simply become mere rubber stamps. Let us not proceed down that line. My answer is that the power to stop legislation is our greatest strength. Therefore, we are according a remarkable privilege, and one that should be given only for private legislation.
We should think carefully about hybrid Bills, which is what we have here, with major Government legislation as part of it. We are allowing highly controversial legislation to be carried over to a new Session. In this case, we must do so because the promoters have been led down that path and it would be unjust of Parliament not to allow the case to continue to be put. In no way should we fail to understand the importance of what we are doing; nor should we do it lightly.
However, I must express my dissatisfaction with the hybrid procedure for a proposition of this nature. Some: valuable points have been made, for example, about the Waterloo terminus. We must put it on record that. consideration of the London terminus or termini of the Channel tunnel project is an integral part of the proceedings. It is fundamentally wrong that consideration of that terminus is not part of the whole procedure, and being examined in depth by whatever body is deemed appropriate to consider it. Nobody, even the strong supporters of the Bill, pretended that that consideration has been made.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drew attention to this point, and then said rather sadly that, because we did not get a public inquiry to consider this matter, he would watch carefully the Government proposals during the coming months. However, his party voted against a public inquiry, so he is trying to have his cake and eat it when he worries about the absence of an inquiry against which he and his party voted.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There are two issues. The first is whether there should have been a public inquiry at the beginning, and the Government made it clear that they would not have one, and the matter was fought and lost some time ago. The second was whether there should be an inquiry into whether the terminus in London should be


Waterloo or some other station. My argument was that given that it was clear that this was just a subsection within a clause, and there was not to be a public inquiry into it, there should be far more than two and a half days on limited selective questioning as to whether that was the appropriate formula, excluding asking British Rail to justify its position.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman said, "The matter was fought and lost some time ago," as though it were a matter of regret, when I presume that he was glad that the battle for a public inquiry was lost because he voted against a public inquiry. We now have to find out from him and his party what they expect by way of public inquiry into this one question.
It is regrettable that the Select Committee, for all its tremendous efforts, has excluded matters that are of fundamental concern, particularly safety, finance and fair compeitition. Other hon. Members have referred to fair competition. I fully accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends will endeavour to build into the project the requirement that there will be fair competition between the ferries and the tunnel. However, legislation now is unlikely to be effective a decade from now if a tunnel is built. It will be even less effective if French or overseas interests end up with a dominant financial interest in the tunnel. The ferries against which they will be competing will be British ferries.
It will be very hard to ensure that the Channel tunnel does not adopt a policy of predatory pricing against ferry operators if at that time the British financial interest in the tunnel is a minority interest. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say just how we shall be able to ensure that the Channel tunnel operators do not adopt a predatory pricing policy against the remaining ferries. That is not a small matter. If all ferry operations were to come to an end, with all the consequent implications for defence, our maritime tradition and seafaring interests, I suspect that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members and the electorate would be against the Channel tunnel project. We are entitled to far greater assurances from the Government on this point.
Without launching into any of the points that were made at some length by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), there is immense concern in our county about the environmental impact and damage to commercial interests and to our ports. It has nothing whatever to do with whether or not one was for or against entry into the EEC. To my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury and for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) it is a romantic dream. They are welcome to it. That is fine. But to others the Channel tunnel is a transport communications system which has to be judged in the light of its impact upon our environment and our commercial interests. My hon. Friends do no justice to the argument by introducing fairly ancient arguments about the EEC.
Furthermore, construction of the tunnel is not necessarily an exciting and imaginative technological challenge to everybody. We have gone beyond that. Already we have highly efficient, varied, fast and economic transport links with the Community. I resent my hon. Friend's allegation that we are "little Englanders." This island has great maritime links with the continent of Europe and with the rest of the world. Being an island has made this country more outward looking than any other

nation. My hon. Friend wants to substitute one rolling motorway for a whole range of transport links with Europe. If he finds that exciting, so be it, but it is not right for him to level the charge at other people that because they are against that particular engineering project they are small-minded or "little Englanders." We can be very proud of our maritime links. They are highly developed and highly sophisticated and they are of immense value to this country.
I believe that this is a bad Bill. It will be environmentally damaging to our county and it will not be good for Britain. It is right that the promoters should be allowed to put their case fully, but they should put it in accordance with the traditions and procedures of this House. It should not be done lightly and it should be done now, but in a fairly relaxed manner. This Bill should be allowed to be further examined. Judging by all the historic references to past failures, this tunnel will never be built in our lifetime. During the forthcoming Session of Parliament, I think that the Bill will stumble at one of the many further hurdles that it has yet to encounter.

Mr. David Mitchell: I find myself in happy agreement with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who opened the debate for the Opposition by expressing appreciation for the work of the Select Committee. The House owes a considerable debt to the Chairman and the members of the Select Committee for the tremendous amount of work that they put in. Quite uniquely in the history of Select Committees, the Committee Members went to Kent to meet the local people and see on the ground what was going on. The House will want to put that fact on record.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North referred to the assertion that it would have been better to have a public inquiry. A public inquiry would involve an inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, hearing the evidence, not in a wholly dissimilar way from the way in which the Select Committee heard the evidence before it. The inspector would then make his report in private to the Secretary of State, who, in private, would make his decision, against which there would be no appeal, and then publish the inspector's report together with his own decision.
I should have thought that, on a matter of such unique national importance as the Channel tunnel, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North would take the view that it required something more than a Secretary of State taking the ultimate decision, behind closed doors, as to whether the planning of this tunnel should go ahead. That is why the Select Committee procedure, with the Committee sitting in public and making its report public, is a more democratic one. The highest tribunal of the land can take the decision. The hon. Gentleman can take another view, but I am putting forward mine.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Minister takes such a view of the highly democratic nature of our Parliament and the need for Members of Parliament to make up their own minds, will he guarantee that when the Bill is again considered by the House — if the motion is passed —there will be no Government Whips operating?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware—he need have no hesitation or doubt about this—that in this matter the Whips will not be of signal importance. My


hon. Friends who are not in favour of the Channel Tunnel Bill will vote against it, Whips or no Whips. The hon. Gentleman can take that assurance.
The next point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North concerned the need for inland clearance depots linked to British Rail. I agree that at the moment there are rail-served inland clearance depots at Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Stratford, London. He is right. This is something to which we should pay close attention. I recently asked for further information about the best location for British Rail's linkage with various parts of the country. As the hon. Gentleman may know, Sheffield has been taking a special interest in the possibility of establishing a new inland clearance depot with that in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) sought to make a funeral oration over the Channel tunnel. Mark Twain's response seems particularly appropriate:
The report of my death was an exaggeration.
My hon. Friend went on to assert that only £206 million had been raised out of £5,000 million required, and that this was only 4 per cent. of the money. My hon. Friend has got it wrong. The promoters are not seeking that amount of equity. The vast majority of that sum will be in the form of loans for which contact has already been made. Twenty five per cent of the equity has already been raised. It is remarkable that that amount has been raised before the Bill has gone through the House, before the legislation has gone through the French Parliament, before the treaty has been ratified and before the concession agreement has come into effect and subjected to an unparalleled campaign of substantial distortion by the opponents of the proposal. On that basis, it is remarkable that the equity raising has been so successful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South said that the project had been saved, but asked for whose benefit. He went on to say that the winners would be the few investors in Eurotunnel who stand to make a fortune. My hon. Friend is apparently suffering from schizophrenia because a little later he went on to say that the project was a south sea bubble and that no profits would be made from it. His schizophrenia showed itself again when he talked about the French investing in the tunnel and it being a French tunnel. The last time we debated this issue my hon. Friend tried to persuade us that the French would withdraw their support. He now alleges that it is a profitable operation in which they wish to invest. He should he careful not to contradict himself too often.
My hon. Friend spoke of the garden of England going grey under concrete. In any case, whatever happens, the traffic going through the east Kent area—whether it is Channel tunnel or port—will double by the end of the century and we will have to provide massive additional road infrastructure for that purpose. That is where the largest part of the concrete to which my hon. Friend referred will be.
Because this is a rail link tunnel, British Rail expects that it will take no fewer than 1,000 38-tonne lorries a day off the Kent roads. The environmentalists and my hon. Friend, if he wishes to be unbiased in these matters, can take some satisfaction from that.
My hon. Friend referred to taxpayers' money for British Rail. I assure him that the money for BR in this project is wholly commercial. There will be no extension of the public service obligation and the taxpayers'

contribution to BR in respect of financing its work for the Channel tunnel. About £390 million of expenditure is to be incurred at 1985 prices, which will provide a useful number of jobs, but it will be commercial money. It will not come from the taxpayer. The project will be fully viable in its own right.
My hon. Friend asked what gains there would he and said that there would not be gains in jobs. It is certain that not only will there be gains in jobs—about 10.000 a year on average over the next seven years during construction of the tunnel — but that once it is completed, as my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) said, exporters and industrialists in the far north will be able to get their goods delivered to the markets of Europe. Sixty per cent. of our exports go to Europe. We shall be able to get delivery of those goods to the markets within 24 hours with a reliability, speed and low cost which cannot apply today. In doing so, we will ensure that jobs will be more secure in the north of the country than they are now, with the present disadvantages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) drew attention to the opportunities for BR to exploit our geographical position. He was right. With his long experience of sea matters, he will be familiar with the development of the vast international container ships going one way around the world which seek one, and only one, stop in Europe. The map shows that one stop in the United Kingdom with a Channel tunnel will provide them with the best, most economic way of getting their containers into the European market.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) asked me to confirm the correctness of my earlier assertion that, if the Bill is required to go through a further Session, there must be a further carry-forward motion. I can assure him on that score. What I said at the beginning was correct.

Mr. Silkin: That was not the assurance for which I asked. The assurance I requested was that, if the Bill becomes stuck in the next Session, it will not be carried forward into the Session after that. The hon. Gentleman did not deal with the point that I made about the Standing Order. On the contrary, he has now confirmed that, in the Government's view, it will run from Session to Session.

Mr. Mitchell: Let us be absolutely clear. Tonight we are ensuring that the Bill goes forward, later this month, to the new Session of Parliament. We are not ensuring that it would automatically be carried on the basis of the motion tonight into any future Session of Parliament, either because of a general election intervening, or because of the end of that Session of Parliament.

Mr. Silkin: Will the Minister make this absolutely clear? Can the Government give the assurance that if the Bill fails in the next Session that will be the end and it will have to start the process all over again? I want that assurance, because that was what the hon. Gentleman was trying to tell me—that there would be no carry forward from next Session to the Session after that.

Mr. Mitchell: Of course I am not going to give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance; nor would he expect me to do that. He knows perfectly well that the Bill has Government support. If, for any reason that I cannot imagine, it was still around at the end of the next Session,


or if a general election were to intervene, of course I would expect to see the Bill brought up again and carried forward into the ensuing Session.
The right hon. Member for Deptford gave us a very interesting dissertation on Ramsay MacDonald and the 1931 precedent. He suggested that tonight was a major parliamentary event.

Mr. James Hamilton: Oh, come off it.

Mr. Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman did suggest that this was a major parliamentary event. He drew attention to the fact that Ramsay MacDonald had moved a similar motion in respect of London Transport in 1931. It has now become common practice for hybrid Bills to be treated in this way, and that is acknowledged in "Erskine May".
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that this was not the right thing to spend "our money on." I wrote those words down as he used them. It is not spending "our money." I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would recall that the project is completely privately financed. "Our money" is not being put into it, and that is one of the big advantages. The risks are being taken by the investors and not by the taxpayers.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) raised a number of important points. He expressed anxiety over the uncertainty that his constituents face, especially in the way of blight. That is a very good reason why the House should see the project through and come to a decision in the ensuing Session of Parliament as quickly as possible. I can give my right hon. and learned Friend the assurances that he sought about competition, and I can add that the Government have agreed to bring forward a clause in Standing Committee that will prohibit the Government from providing funds or guarantees to Eurotunnel. I hope that that will remove some of my right hon. and learned Friend's anxieties.
My right hon. and learned Friend also raised the question of the A20 and stated how important the road is to his constituents. I know that it is important for relieving congestion, for reducing accidents and for providing relief for Capel le Ferne. However, my right hon. and learned Friend will know, and the House will want to know, that we must seek the views of the Select Committee. Like my right hon. and learned Friend, I shall be watching with great interest to see what the Select Committee has to say on that subject.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) spoke about the sole use of Waterloo as an outlet for the Channel tunnel. I draw his attention to the fact that it is British Rail's intention to run services to Waterloo and through Olympia to the northern parts of the country. One would be able to get a train from Glasgow, Manchester or Birmingham and pass through Olympia. Waterloo will not have the sole concentration of traffic. Having said that, in answer to the worries that the hon. Gentleman expressed, I must tell him that the number of trains that enter Waterloo daily is legion. In the project we are talking about four trains an hour. We should have some sense of proportion about this, rather than assume that 500,000 people a day will pour through the place so that one would not be able to move for the resulting congestion.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister is well aware that it is not just four trains an hour, but four trains of exceptional length, each equivalent to two trains. In addition, it is four trains in and out. Will he answer the traffic flow figures that have been given which suggest that they are equivalent to Gatwick? In reality, Lambeth—for example—has no elevation, no study of the plans for a terminal to absorb that sort of traffic.
Will the Minister also address the question of the social criteria and the impact on land use values? Unfortunately, the Minister's committee would not accept those criteria, and no one else seems to be considering them. That is one reason why the community groups withdrew from the committee.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's last point in a moment. He expressed some outrage that there was no evidence from British Rail before the committee. The committee had the power to require British Rail to give it whatever evidence it required. If it decided that it did not require further evidence, so he it.
In respect of the number of passengers, British Rail must plan its terminal not on annual figures but on peak flows, based on the number of trains arriving and leaving in any hour, and with the expectation that at certain points in the year those trains will be nearly full. That is what British Rail's consultants, Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, have done. They have assumed four full trains inwards and four full trains outwards an hour, which is the most that the railway network between the tunnel and London can accommodate. That would provide 6,000 additional passengers in the hour moving through Waterloo. The consultants examined how they could be handled by the road system and the Underground, and concluded that there was adequate capacity on both. Indeed, with an altered road layout within the station, the road conditions on surrounding roads during peak periods in 2003 will be no worse than at present.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the joint consultation committee. That was an opportunity to expose, with the representatives of British Rail standing in front of the committee, all the figures, facts and information. I deeply regret that, for very narrow reasons, the representatives of the Lambeth area walked out of that meeting. Other councils were able to extract a great deal of useful information from British Rail.
It reflects ill on the hon. Gentleman that, having encouraged me to set up the committee, his local representatives should walk out and then complain later that they did not obtain the information that they wanted.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister is well aware that they are not my local representatives — [Interruption.] No, no, no—the House should get this clear. We are not talking about Lambeth council and its representation; we are talking about local community groups. The local community group decided that as the question of the social impact of the Channel tunnel traffic would not be taken into account by the committee, and that it would be solely a matter of the traffic implications, they could not cooperate with the committee. These questions will not be answered at all. Gibbs has not answered them. There will be the equivalent of 16 trains an hour, with Gatwick-like traffic, going through a terminal building about the size of this Chamber. It is quite absurd.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman should know—and I am sorry that he does not— that the reason why Lambeth representatives walked out had nothing to do with the explanation that he has just given. It was because they wanted the meetings held in public so that they could turn it into a public meeting rather than one in which elected representatives could discuss issues—rather as the elected representatives in Kent discussed them and as a result secured a number of changes.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of a report in the New Civil Engineer and asked whether it was true that British Rail was planning secretly to build a new line to the east of Sevenoaks. He asked me to deny that. The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the anatomy of a rumour. Some months ago British Rail asked some younger members of staff to work out every single, conceivable option —there were 50 of them, and this was one. Forty-nine were rejected, and this is one that was rejected as not being a potential runner. How the magazine got hold of that one and picked it up rather than the other 49 I would not know, but it was on that basis that the article rested. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that there is no truth in the rumour and that there is no reason to place any reliance on it.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Is the Minister saying that the proposal will never be put to the Government and will never be accepted by them for such traffic, despite its major implications for the scheme?

Mr. Mitchell: I have just explained the antecedents of the rumour. As BR rejected it, and as I can handle only propositions that come to me from BR, no such proposition is on the table.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I asked two questions about Waterloo. Is the fact that the Select Committee decided not to hear BR the end of the matter? Will there be a private Bill for the terminal at Waterloo, or will there be a public inquiry?

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry if I omitted to answer those questions. No, there will not be a further Bill. That matter is contained in this measure, and as the relevant schedules will come before the Standing Committee there will be further opportunity for debate then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury courageously put a view which not all his constituents share. I have been in Canterbury three times in the last month and almost every one of the younger people I met in the city was wholly in favour of the scheme. History will judge my hon. Friend well for the stand that he is taking.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised a number of points. He said that the Select Committee should not be hurried. That is the purpose of this motion, which provides two options. One deals with the possibility of the Select Committee completing its work in time, while the other does not. The whole of the worry that the hon. Gentleman expressed has been fully catered for.
The hon. Gentleman asked why Waterloo and not Victoria? The platforms at Victoria are not long enough and the amount of property that would have to be demolished would be considerable. He then asked why not Blackfriars. The platforms there are not long enough and could not he made long enough. Why not London Bridge, he asked. The curve of the line there would not allow trains

of this length to be handled properly. I have already answered his question about whether there will be more opportunity for debate. As I explained, the schedules will provide that opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West was also uneasy about the Waterloo situation. I have explained the opportunity that was given to the representatives of the people of Waterloo and Lambeth and how they walked out on that opportunity, so they can hardly grumble about a lack of such opportunity.
Hon. Members also drew attention to one of the most important factors arising out of the Channel tunnel, and that is its effect on BR and the opportunity for BR to be linked into the whole of the European rail network. I profoundly believe that the opportunities that that will provide for our exporters in north Wales, Glasgow and the north of the country—to be able to compete on equal terms with others who have land frontiers with the major countries of Europe will prove in the long run to be one of the most lasting beneficial effects to flow from the Channel tunnel.
Whether hon. Members support or oppose the Channel tunnel, I believe that none of us would want to put all the petitioners to the trouble and expense of re-representing their views to a new Select Committee, so I hope that the whole House will approve the carry forward proposal. An expert on procedure told me that the subject of a carryover motion of this sort on a private or hybrid Bill could be said to be twofold—to make petitioners less poor than they otherwise would be, and lawyers less rich than they otherwise would be. I commend it to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 73.

Division No. 307]
[11.40 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon K (Rushcliffe)


Amess, David
Cockeram, Eric


Ancram, Michael
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Tom
Coombs, Simon


Ashby, David
Cope, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Crouch, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Durant, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, William
Evennett, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fallon, Michael


Blackburn, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gale, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Budgen, Nick
Hickmet, Richard


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hind, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Hirst, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cash, William
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Chapman, Sydney
Lang, Ian






Lawrence, Ivan
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Livsey, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Silvester, Fred


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speed, Keith


Major, John
Spencer, Derek


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Malone, Gerald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marlow, Antony
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mellor, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Murphy, Christopher
Tracey, Richard


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Norris, Steven
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Osborn, Sir John
Wallace, James


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Ward, John


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Warren, Kenneth


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Pollock, Alexander
Wheeler, John


Porter, Barry
Whitfield, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, Sir David
Winterton, Nicholas


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wolfson, Mark


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Rhodes James, Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Ryder, Richard
Mr. Michael Portillo.


NOES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Forrester, John


Barnett, Guy
Foster, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Foulkes, George


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Garrett, W. E.


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godman, Dr Norman


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Caborn, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clay, Robert
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clelland, David Gordon
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Douglas


Dalyell, Tarn
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Donald
Lamond, James


Dormand, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted


Douglas, Dick
Leighton, Ronald


Dubs, Alfred
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Loyden, Edward


Eastham, Ken
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
McWilliam, John


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)





Maxton, John
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Michie, William
Soley, Clive


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael


Raynsford, Nick



Redmond, Martin
Tellers for the Noes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Don Dixon and


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mr. Allen Adams.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That, when the Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill reports the Bill to the House, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.

Ordered,
That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Bill stood when proceedings thereon were suspended in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) if the Committee has reported that it has gone through the Bill, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from a Select Committee;
(c) if the Committee has reported that it has not completed its consideration of the Bill—

(i) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Committee in this Session;
(ii) all Petitions presented in this Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
(iii) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in this Session which have been reported to the House shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
(iv) the Instruction [17th July] shall be an Instruction to the Committee;
(v) only those Petitions mentioned in subparagraph (ii) above, and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the next Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(vi) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;
(vii) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it;
(viii) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;
(ix) any person registered in this Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practice as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in the next Session;



(d) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session; and
(e) if the Bill is reported, or is deemed by virtue of paragraph (b) above to have been reported, from a Select Committee in the next Session, it shall thereupon stand re-committed to a Standing Committee.

Ordered,
That this Order he a Standing Order of the House.

PETITIONS

Jarrow Crusade

Mr. Bill Michie: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by more than 2,700 people from the Sheffield area protesting about the level of unemployment and its effect upon the young.
I pay tribute to the marchers who accompanied the Jarrow march from Sheffield to London to present this petition not just to me but to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), far Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).
Since 1979 Sheffield has passed through a difficult period. We need the House to recognise the plight of our people in Sheffield. The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House does urge Her Majesty's Government that the necessary action be taken, and the necessary active assistance given to remedy the wrongs at present being inflicted on Sheffield.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Allen McKay: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by 7,500 constituents who reside in the Barnsley metropolitan district, represented in the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) and myself. It is for the convenience of the House that I present the petition.
The petition is the result of the Jarrow crusade 1986. We had the honour and privilege of being with the marchers during their short stay in Barnsley. It is a crusade of people — young and not so young — who have marched yet again, after the last Jarrow crusade, to bring to the attention of the nation the plight of the unemployed' —more than 21 per cent. in the Barnsley metropolitan district. That represents more than 18,500 people, including hundreds of young people who have never seen real permanent employment. The area has 1,400 school leavers embarking upon a career of unemployment.
Based on the Government's regional assessment submitted to the European Community, the area will be one of continuous decline. That is the pattern if the Government continue in office.
Two of our young constituents joined the crusade at Barnsley and they helped to present the petition outside the House this morning. They were chosen as representatives of the members of the Barnsley Centre Against Unemployment. They are Tracey Devenport and Dean Kenyon. For over three years they have sought employment day in, day out. As they walked south they saw how unemployment became less pronounced and prosperity more evident.
They rightly ask why that is. Why is the nation so divided? What is the House doing about it and how long will it take to get rid of the problem? That is why the petitioners
pray that your honourable House urges that necessary active assistance be given by the Government for the provision of work in the area of Barnsley metropolitan district.
This is a great credit to all who took part in the crusade.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. William O'Brien: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 5,000 people in the Wakefield metropolitan district area, covering Wakefield, Hemsworth, Pontefract and Castleford, and Normanton. The 5,000 people have signed a petition asking the Government to take action to arrest the industrial dereliction in the area. The petition talks of seven years of dereliction and industrial depression which has never been paralleled in the history of the area. We ask that the Government take note of the petition.
Young people marched the full length of the country to bring to the Government's notice the need to generate employment in the north of England and throughout the country. We share their plea that the Government should allow employment to be developed in areas with extensive unemployment.
I present the petition on behalf of colleagues who represent the Wakefield metropolitan area.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Don Dixon: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of many thousands of my constituents.
I recall the 1936 Jarrow crusade as a seven-year-old child. Little did I know that 50 years later I would be presenting a petition about unemployment in the town in which I was born and bred.
The petition states:
for seven years Jarrow has endured industrial depression without parallel in the town's history.
We have lost many jobs. The whole of the shipbuilding industry on the south side of the Tyne has been obliterated by this Government's policies. Ten unemployed constituents, Ken Smith, Wayne Scott, Paul Loft, Lawrence Maloy, David Melia, Billy Orr, John Badger, Harry Thorn, Paul Thomas and Stephen Byrne, carried the petition in the original box which held the petition in 1936.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that to have petitions read at this time of the day the House officials are notified. Other similar petitions will follow. Perhaps you will draw to the notice of those responsible that the Paymaster General, the Minister responsible for unemployment, has not had the decency to turn up for the presentation of the petitions. He was prepared to turn up earlier today when we were discussing availability for work. The Paymaster General himself is not available for work. He is treating the people who have walked 300 miles with nothing less then contempt.

Mr. James Wallace: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The shadow spokesman for employment is not here either.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Whether Ministers are present or not is not a matter for the Chair.

Housing (Basildon)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. David Amess: Ironically, the very success of Basildon in promoting itself as an attractive new town has largely contributed to the present pressures on our housing stock. Basildon has everything going for it at the moment — good community facilities, excellent communications, particularly now with the completion of the final part of the M25, increasing job opportunities, reducing unemployment, the largest covered shopping centre in Europe—and all that set in the heart of the beautiful Essex countryside.
Our slogan is "Basildon means business" and that we certainly do. On Monday 8 December for one week there will be an exhibition in the Palace of Westminster entitled "Basildon—a town of opportunity". It will be Basildon week in the House of Commons and the Commission for the New Towns will be promoting the event in order to stimulate even further interest in our town. So the commitment to permanently securing Basildon's position as the finest new town in the country is as strong as ever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Nevertheless, if that is to be achieved, it is essential that housing policy in Basildon is directed in such a way as to meet people's evolving needs.
Most hon. Members, however long they have served in the House, would agree that the number one problem that appears time after time in their postbags is that of housing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."' It is often said that an Englishman's home is his castle. If that is so, experience has shown me that everyone wants to live in as pleasant a castle as possible.

Mr. Walter Harrison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My parliamentary colleagues keep shouting out "Reading, reading" and I am unable to listen to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) giving us the good information that he tries to do. Is it possible for you to bring order to the place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for protecting the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

Mr. Amess: The purpose for which new towns were established is well known and in Basildon's case it was largely for the purpose of easing housing pressures from the east end of London—the area from which I hail. In that objective there can be no question but that the Commission for the New Towns has certainly been successful. I only regret that some of the London boroughs, having been given that opportunity, continue to pursue misguided housing policies which only seem to make matters worse and people's lives miserable.
I doubt whether there is any town in the country where the Government's housing policies have been so successful as in Basildon. The right-to-buy legislation has transformed our town. I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister how much my constituents welcome the latest legislation which we discussed only last night which increases still further the discount on the sale of council and commission properties and the reduction in the period before one can resell a property thus purchased. Record sales of council and corporation property have been


achieved in Basildon. All that in spite of intense opposition to our right-to-buy legislation from the three Socialist parties—Labour, Social Democrat and Liberal. I still find it extraordinary that Socialist councillors can purchase their council or corporation property while supporting parties which do not approve of such an opportunity for the general public. Such behaviour is hypocritical.
While on the question of the right to buy, I want to make my first specific point to the Minister. It seems unfair to me that constituents who desperately wish to purchase their property are being denied that opportunity because their homes are regarded as unfit for a mortgage, particularly due to the problem of clay heave in Basildon following the drought that we experienced some years ago which has meant that a number of properties still require underpinning. There seems to be a great reluctance among the financial institutions to grant mortgages on such properties and my constituents are being deprived of their right to buy.
Let me also say at this point how greatly my constituents look forward to the Government's recently announced initiative on the right to rent. There is no properly established rented sector in Basildon and encouragement in that area is welcomed by my constituents. In the 1960s a number of high-speed system-built properties were developed in Basildon. About 1,000 such properties were built in the Vange area of the town. Roughly half of these are now owner-occupied and the other half are still rented. Over the past two or three years, structural problems have arisen and the houses are now known widely as suffering from concrete cancer. I understand that the builder who was responsible for using faulty components is now bankrupt.
People who originally purchased those properties from the corporation or the council have found it impossible to sell them. A blight has been put on them by the financial institutions and the Vange housing action group has been formed under the leadership of Mr. Williamson. I pay tribute to the group for its efforts in getting the matter resolved. The Under-Secretary has not only seen the properties, but has seen a deputation at the Department.
I understand that the Housing Defects Act 1984 does not cover these properties. I fully appreciate the compexities of this matter, but I have to tell the Minister that the patience of my constituents seems to be wearing a little thin. The circumstances of the people concerned are different, but all of them are clamouring for action and they are looking to me in particular to provide it. They want to know what arrangements are being made for examining each property to ascertain what, if anything, is wrong with it. If there are faults, the tenants want to know whether the property will be repaired or bought back and at what price. They have also said that if a dwelling is given a clean bill of health it is essential that some direction be given to the financial institutions and estate agents to lift the blight that hangs over the properties.
We all realise that, strictly speaking, the responsibility lies with the purchaser and the surveyor, if an independent structural survey were carried out. However, I have made it clear that the Government, who rightly introduced legislation enabling stock to be purchased, accept responsibility in this matter. I ask for a clear and precise statement about the future of these properties, and an assurance that individual counselling be given after that announcement has been made.
Another worry about housing in Basildon is the speculation, much of it mischievous, about the disposal of the 16,000 properties presently under the management of the commission. Despite the fact that before its demise the development corporation made it clear that for the immediate future there would be no change for tenants, the management was passed to the new town commission. The then Socialist council, without direction, decided at great expense to the ratepayers to embark on a so-called consultation exercise with the commission tenants. This is quite disgraceful, but what can one expect from a body that is now involved in a consultation process about local education, a service provided exclusively by Essex county council? Of course, it all has to do with political posturing and an attempt to cause divisions where none should exist.
It is intolerable that rumours have been spread causing alarm, especially to the elderly, suggesting that if a body other than the council takes over the houses, repairs and the like will not be carried out. At present, a high proportion of the housing stock is in public ownership. As the future ownership of the 16,000 dwellings is considered, our prime responsibility will surely he to determine who is best able to manage those properties and who would have the necessary financial support to bring them up to the high standard that we hope they will reach.
I now come to the final matter that I wish to bring to the Minister's attention—the problem of housing single people in Basildon. I want to take the opportunity of this debate to launch a campaign for a building programme to house them. They are the forgotten many.
Just about every conceivable building design has been tried in Basildon and I shudder when I hear that some of the designers are receiving awards for estates which have since suffered appalling problems. In two such developments—Langdon hills and Felmore— action groups have been formed to try to sort out the district heating systems.
Sheltered housing in Basildon, however, enjoys an extremely high reputation throughout the country. It has even been used as an advertisement in a party political broadcast. There is constant demand from the elderly to be given the opportunity to live in Basildon. I pay tribute to all the assistance that Essex county council, the Commission for the New Towns and the Government give the elderly in Basildon, and deservedly so, and the tremendous assistance that is received from voluntary organisations.
Unfortunately, I have a never-ending stream of young people coming to my surgeries who desperately need accommodation either to rent or purchase. These are second or third generation Basildonians. Their parents came originally to the town on the understanding that their children would be housed, but, alas, the demand has not been met. There is constant frustration locally about the points system, which has been changed with the result that applicants feel that the goalposts are continually being shifted.
Some of my constituents have commented that if they become pregnant and have a baby they will he housed. What a spirit in which to take on the responsibility of bringing a child into the world. I have a high proportion of single-parent families in Basildon, who desperately need support and proper accommodation. I have always maintained that I do not want any more of our local countryside lost to building programmes, but there are clearly certain areas still where specific building programmes could be undertaken for single people. I am


sure that my constituents would welcome an extension of the highly successful shared ownership scheme and the provision of flats and bed-sits.
Another possibility that could be explored is the provision of the university complex type of accommodation at reasonable rents, or community studio apartments. There is a need also for a sophisticated version of YMCA-type accommodation for young people who face tension and difficulties at home and yet are not quite ready for the responsibility of independent accommodation. There are no tower blocks such as those in London which could be decanted and used for accommodation for single people, even if the equation were as simple as that. There are no doubt parts of estates, however, that could be usefully reserved for those with special housing needs. The possibilities are endless and all avenues should be explored in an effort to improve matters.
I started by extolling the virtues of Basildon as a new town and a place of opportunity. Young people are its lifeblood. We owe it to them, while recalling the visit of Lord Stockton to the town in the early 1950s, to provide a base from which they can flourish.

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): Lord Stockton's successor by many removes, who is standing at the Dispatch Box, visited Basildon, in the company of his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), not so long ago, and saw the realisation of the dream of his noble Friend. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of housing in Basildon and for giving me the opportunity to put on record what the Government are doing to try to help Basildon.
I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon on his exemplary and persistent performance in putting across to the Government the concerns and views of his constituents. I went to Basildon with him, as I have said, to hear some of them at first hand. My hon. Friend is an advocate for Basildon and its people, and they should realise that.
This evening my hon. Friend has concentrated on housing issues that affect his new town. As he said, it is ironic that a new town which was set up in response to housing problems should now be having problems of its own. My hon. Friend has raised four main groups of problems, the last one being the need for better provision for single people in the town. I hope that time will allow me to deal with that issue. If not, I should like to write immediately after the debate to let him know what we are doing on shared ownership and in a number of other directions which may be of help.
I shall concentrate on the activities of Basildon council under Socialist control, what can be done to help those suffering from clay heave and what I have decided to do to help in the Vange area. What Basildon did when it was under Socialist control to try to put the frighteners on its tenants was a scandalous misuse of public money and a politically immoral act of a particularly savage kind. It tried to put across inaccurate information to frighten tenants, some of them elderly, about their future. There is no basis for what was done. The Government and people of most political views deplore such actions.
Yesterday, during the almost closing stages of the Housing and Planning Bill, Labour Members said that it is important not to tell lies about Government policy. I congratulate those on the Opposition Benches who said that. I only wish that the message had filtered through to those on Basildon council who have done so much damage not just to their standards as councillors, but to those living in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Some people living there find that their houses suffer from considerable problems of ground movement and clay heave. My hon. Friend has mentioned dwellings that have suffered ground movement. I understand that that in itself should not prevent subsequent mortgageability. There is no particular reason why it should do so, provided that reasonable remedial action has been taken. The development corporation devised a thorough system of underpinning, and I understand that houses repaired in this way have subsequently been sold to tenants, with finance coming from building societies.
My hon. Friend and I both strongly support the right to buy. If my hon. Friend has specific, named cases of building societies that will not accept otherwise traditional houses that have been underpinned by the new town corporation, perhaps he will write to me giving me chapter and verse, so that I can have the matter looked into further. We have evidence that houses properly underpinned under the scheme have been sold satisfactorily.
I know that the welfare of people in the Vange area has greatly concerned my hon. Friend since the matter came to light two years ago. I must go into this in some detail, and it is the kind of detail that Mr. Williamson and his friends on the action group, whose work I admire, will want to look at carefully in Hansard. Subject to certain conditions, the Commission for the New Towns should be authorised to offer to buy owner-occupied HSSB houses and flats at 95 per cent. of what their value would be in the absence of faults or potential faults associated with the use of the HSSB system in Basildon.
The percentage has been adopted by analogy with the provisions of part XVI of the Housing Act 1985, formerly the Housing Defects Act 1984, although the dwellings are not being designated under that Act. It is important to get these details down. The offer will be open only to owner-occupiers who bought their HSSB dwellings before the date of this announcement today. The commission will be authorised to buy only in cases where an owner-occupier will on completion offer vacant possession to the commission. Ample notice would be given to remaining eligible owner-occupiers of any closing date for the scheme, and in practice I expect it to operate for several years.
The faults, or potential faults, associated directly with the HSSB system which will be disregarded for the purposes of arriving at prices to be offered by the commission to owner-occupiers are, first, any defects in the structural connections between the concrete components and, secondly, actual or potential corrosion of steel reinforcement in structural concrete components. In all other respects valuation will reflect the actual condition of the dwelling.
The HSSB dwellings, both owner-occupied and tenanted, are, I am told, mostly very satisfactory and pleasant homes. The main problem for owner-occupiers arises from the general reluctance of building societies and others to lend on these dwellings, in view of the possible


risk of defects developing later in the concrete components as a result of building methods that were employed at that time. The commission is carrying out investigations to see whether precautionary measures may be advisable to reduce any risk of structural problems arising in the shorter term. The commission will indeed inform the HSSB residents in due course about any such measures. Owners who sell to the commission will remain subject to the normal rules on repayment of discount.
I do not want to burden the House with too much detail, but it is important to put a few further facts before my hon. Friend and the House. Discount will be repayable if an owner purchased at a discount and if, at the date of sale to the commission, a period of less than five years — or three years, once the relevant provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill have taken effect — has elapsed since that earlier transaction. An owner's reasonable costs for conveyance of the property to the commission, incurred after the commission has notified the owner of the particular proposed terms for purchase of his home, will be met by the commission. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that provision.
To spread the cost and to alleviate practical problems, the commission may have to arrange applications from owners wishing to sell to it in order of priority. Clearly it cannot all be done at once. Priority will be decided on personal circumstances—for example, medical or social difficulties, or the need to move for reasons of employment elsewhere in the country or abroad. I must stress that each purchase by the commission will, of course, reflect the prevailing conditions in the housing market at the time that the transaction takes place.
Those who are now tenants of HSSB houses and fiats in Basildon and who have the right to buy under the Housing Act 1985 will retain that right. Any future purchases of HSSB dwellings from the commission or any other owner will, however, be at the purchaser's own risk. It is very important that my hon. Friend's constituents understand that after the date of my announcement any future purchases of HSSB dwellings from the commission or any other owner will be entirely at the purchaser's own risk. Such purchasers must be aware that they may be unable to sell their homes at a future date and that they will not be eligible for repurchase of their homes by the commission.
I hope that on reflection my hon. Friend will feel that he is able to welcome the announcement that I have made in considerable detail, for which I apologise both to him and to the House. However, I know that if I had not made the announcement in considerable detail, my hon. Friend would have been inundated with requests for details from his constituents. I am sure that Mr. Williamson and others

will welcome this news. If anything that I have said is not clear on the record, my hon. Friend knows that he has only to write to me for elucidation.
In the three or four minutes of this Adjournment debate that remain. I turn to the fourth and last point that my hon. Friend raised—the problems encountered by young home seekers in Basildon and the relationship of these people to our right-to-buy, but, more importantly, to our right-to-rent policies. Their problems are typical of those faced by their contemporaries elsewhere, particularly in the south of England. The Government's response must be to try to create a favourable climate for the forms of private investment which will be the best solution to those problems. The need to find permanent owners for the new town housing in Basildon may itself help to create a favourable climate for new housing initiatives in the town.
That is a broad-brush generalisation, but it will probably turn out to be true. If, for example, housing transfer leads to a widening of the present narrow housing association base in that part of the country, there might be reason for optimism about Basildon's ability to draw in private investment to tackle today's housing problems and tomorrow's housing expectations.
The armoury of new weapons that the Government are giving themselves to try to help is considerable. We need to encourage City institutions and building societies to provide housing for rent. The Building Societies Act 1986 and the Housing and Planning Bill certainly enable us to make significant moves in that direction.
Shared ownership will be of great importance. The shared tenancies that we are developing, again in cooperation with the private sector, will be important in widening the basis of rented and part-rented, part-owned homes in Basildon and elsewhere. Last week, I announced that I was pursuing an initiative of particular relevance to young people who move away to take up jobs. This is the flat share scheme which we are discussing with building societies and housing associations. Under this scheme, young people will get newly-built or well-converted flats that are especially designed for sharers at affordable rents. I hope that by referring to these three or four schemes my hon. Friend will see that we are developing as fast as we can, in a totally new look at the overall rented sector, ways of helping people who are faced with the sorts of problems he so clearly discussed.
There is hope for the future in the rented sector and the part-owned, part-rented sector and there is help at present for those people who live in the Vange area who have battled so hard for the scheme. I am pleased to take the opportunity presented by my hon. Friend's admirable speech to announce this scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o'clock.